ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked-

Redundancy Costs (Local Authorities)

David Blunkett: What estimate he has made of the likely amount local authorities will incur in redundancy costs in the next 18 months.

Bob Neill: It is for individual councils locally to determine redundancy policies based on their own circumstances. Decisions about when and how to make and manage work force reductions, including policies on redundancy payments, are rightly for individual councils to make as the employers.

David Blunkett: Ministers do not have the first idea what the cost will be to local taxpayers. Is this not a triple whammy, whereby families and individuals lose their services, communities find that provision is taken from them and individuals lose their jobs? Is it not correct that instead of paying for services, council tax payers will have to pay for redundancies for services that are being withdrawn? Is it not a scandal that the Government do not know what the impact will be?

Bob Neill: The Government have endeavoured to assist the most vulnerable local councils by increasing the amount of money available in the formula grant that is not ring-fenced, moving more money into formula grant, reducing the amount of ring-fencing and rolling more grants into one. I imagine that when his Government were in office, the right hon. Gentleman would have complained greatly about their removal of working neighbourhoods funding for his city of Sheffield, which will cost the city some £38 million. We will endeavour to find the means to cushion that-

Mr Speaker: Order. We are talking about redundancy costs, so we must get on with it.

Simon Hughes: I gather that in the comprehensive spending review the Government allocated £200 million for the capitalisation cost of redundancy payments. I also gather that local authority chief executives and treasurers suggest that the costs might be between £1.5 billion and £3 billion. If they are correct and the Government estimate is much lower than the actual sums involved, what are the Government going to do about it?

Bob Neill: Capitalisation, which enables local authorities to treat revenue expenditure as capital and borrow for it is an exception to the accounting rules, so there has always been a need for some control, and capitalisation for a number of streams has never run at 100%. It is also worth bearing in mind that local authorities have been aware for some time that reductions in expenditure were inevitable-they were planned by the previous Government. A shrewd authority will therefore have planned to deal with the problem in advance.

Jack Dromey: Local government now predicts an 11% cut in council budgets next year, with 140,000 jobs lost and a redundancy bill in excess of £2 billion-not the £200 million originally predicted by Ministers. Is local government right? Do Ministers know, or is the truth that they simply do not care about the public servants they will lay off or the public services that they will lay to waste?

Bob Neill: The greatest threat to public services for the future is failure to tackle the unprecedented deficit that the previous Government left us. We are prepared to work with local government to deal with those issues, but the hon. Gentleman and his party clearly have no answers whatever.

Unauthorised Encampments

Eric Ollerenshaw: What steps he is taking to reduce the number of unauthorised encampments.

Jonathan Lord: What steps he is taking to reduce the number of unauthorised encampments.

Eric Pickles: Local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of Traveller site provision in their area to meet local needs and historic demands. We will encourage councils to provide sites with incentives through the new homes bonus scheme and grant funding for local authorities to deliver new sites.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the time frame for the withdrawal of planning order circular 01/06? In the meantime, does he take the view that the Government's intention to withdraw this circular should be a material consideration at both the planning and appeal stage?

Eric Pickles: We have certainly stated our intention to repeal circular 01/06 and we shall shortly start consultation on an alternative to it. In the meantime, given that the localism Bill will substantially change planning on these matters, I can say that our intention almost certainly is a material consideration.

Jonathan Lord: Residents of the village of Normandy in my constituency are fed up with the never-ending cycle of encampments on green-belt fields, retrospective planning applications and seemingly unenforceable planning refusals. Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the measures he has described will provide a proper and permanent solution for my concerned constituents?

Eric Pickles: The short answer to that is, of course, yes.
	I am afraid that the policy pursued by the last Government left us in a very difficult position. Let me give an indication of how difficult it has become. I remind Members that in 1997 there were 887 unlawful encampments. That figure was bad enough, but it has now shot up to 2,395. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we intend to restrict retrospective planning applications substantially.

Christopher Leslie: May I warn the Secretary of State of a new type of unauthorised encampment? In my city of Nottingham, the chief executive of Framework, a major charity for the homeless, warned this week that there would be hundreds of rough sleepers in tents in the woods or in sheds on industrial estates as a result of the swingeing cuts that the Secretary of State has implemented in the Supporting People budget. Will he please think again?

Eric Pickles: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be a little mistaken. As he will know, the Government have passported £6.5 billion to local authorities to support people, and we expect that money to be passed on to the most vulnerable.

David Simpson: Does the Secretary of State agree that no element of human rights legislation contains any provision allowing antisocial behaviour, or enshrining any kind of right or protection allowing people in unauthorised encampments to participate in such behaviour?

Eric Pickles: We are trying to achieve a balanced approach. The last policy was unrealistic. To hit the 2011 targets set by the last Government, we would have to wait for a further 18 years because we are so far behind. I believe that that policy was predicated on conflict, whereas we want to ensure that there is firm action on retrospective planning applications and enforcement. We will end the continuous process of appeal on application, subsequent application and stop notice, but at the same time we hope to introduce mainstream provision for Travellers by including provisional sites in the new homes bonus.

Local Authority Funding

Simon Danczuk: What representations he has received from local authorities on likely changes to funding from his Department since the publication of the comprehensive spending review.

Eric Pickles: I have received a number of representations about the challenging but fair settlement for local government. We will shortly announce details of our proposals for funding local authorities in the provisional local government finance settlement.

Simon Danczuk: The Secretary of State's failure to stand up for councils in the CSR is having a devastating impact on jobs and services in Rochdale. Provision for the homeless, community centres, adult care and many other services are being cut. The situation is so bad that six Liberal Democrat councillors resigned last week, and yesterday the Liberal council leader stood down. Because of the Secretary of State's cuts, the local authority is in turmoil. When will he stand up for local government?

Eric Pickles: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate the coalition Government. We recognise that a number of authorities are more dependent on grant than others. We face a particularly difficult task in relation to Rochdale, as we must bridge just short of £6 million that the Labour Government took from the working neighbourhoods fund, but we will certainly seek to provide that cushion. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is "Go back to Rochdale, put a bit of lead in their pencil, and let them get on with protecting front-line services rather than fighting among themselves."

Bob Blackman: Does my right hon. Friend agree, on the basis of the representations that he has received from local authorities, that every progressive authority in the country will have planned for the reductions in expenditure? Does he intend to ensure that councils are able to freeze council tax following the years of rapid increases under Labour?

Eric Pickles: Absolutely. What was going to happen to local government was well showcased. It was clear from the previous Chancellor's statement in autumn 2009 and the Budget earlier this year, before the general election, that at least £5 billion was coming out of local authorities and that that would be front-loaded. I would therefore expect prudent local authorities and prudent chief executives to have taken the necessary precautions.

Barbara Keeley: The worst aspect of these cuts to local authority budgets, which amount to 28% in real terms over the next four years, is that they are front-loaded. The hardest hit councils are facing reductions in their grants next year of 14%, 18%, 20% or even more. That means they have to plan their service cuts and redundancies now, so may I urge the Secretary of State to think again about the scale of these cuts or to alter their phasing so that councils are not forced to take what will be very damaging crisis measures?

Eric Pickles: "As we look forward", regeneration spending is
	"not the biggest priority we face"
	as there are "other competing priorities." I apologise: perhaps I should have made it clear that those were the words of the now Leader of the Opposition, speaking on the Radio 4 "Today" programme on 12 April, just before the general election. That is the dilemma. The Opposition have a blank piece of paper. They oppose everything when they know, as we know, that they were going to impose £5 billion of front-loaded cuts on local authorities.

Margot James: May I ask the Secretary of State to join me in congratulating my council, Dudley metropolitan borough council, on engaging in discussions with Wolverhampton, Walsall and Sandwell councils about rationalising services and reducing back-office costs without affecting front-line services?

Eric Pickles: I have to say that that is the future of local government. We expect local authorities to merge services and to protect the front line. Prudent councils are doing that. Councils that are more content to use the poor and the vulnerable as a battering ram against the Government will seek to protect the centre and not seek to protect front-line services, whereas good councils will protect the front line.

Local Authority Powers

Nick Raynsford: What progress has been made in devolving more powers and financial autonomy to local authorities.

Greg Clark: In six months, the coalition Government have ended the ring-fencing of all but two revenue grants, simplified over 90 separate funding streams for local government to fewer than 10, scrapped comprehensive area assessments and abolished 4,700 central targets on local government. The localism Bill will give many more new powers to local councils, including a general power of competence. This Government are reversing decades of top-down control, which has led to Britain being one of most centralised countries on the planet.

Nick Raynsford: The Minister may be aware that, in responding to his Department's recent paper on proposed changes to social tenancies, Councillor Richard Kemp, leader of the Liberal Democrats in local government, described the proposals as "an irrelevant fantasy" and added:
	"No council with any sense of the realities on the ground is going to be interested in this".
	Does the Minister-and, perhaps more interestingly, do his coalition partners-agree?

Greg Clark: The consultation my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has launched has been well received across the sector because it introduces a right, not an obligation, and when we have a homelessness crisis, I think it is right to give registered social landlords more flexibility than they currently have in allocating to homeless tenants.

Tim Farron: Like many other local authorities, South Lakeland district council would desperately love the autonomy to be able to scrap the second-home council tax subsidy, which costs the council tax payer in South Lakeland £1.25 million every year. At this time of hardship, difficulty and restraint, is it not time to look again at whether we should give a 10% subsidy to those who can afford it the most?

Greg Clark: We have made a lot of progress already. My hon. Friend is right that localism involves there being greater control of resources locally. A further set of measures will be considered in a review that will start in January, and I will make sure that his proposal is considered in that.

Alison Seabeck: The Minister for Housing and Local Government was not in the House on Monday to answer questions on the housing consultation paper so, while we are on the subject of devolving powers, may I ask his colleague about this? The Government have repeatedly said that they will not allow social landlords to change the rights of existing tenants, yet question 13 of that consultation leaves the door wide open for them to do exactly that in the future. Can this Minister give the House a personal guarantee that the Government will not now or in the future permit changes to the rights of existing social tenants?

Greg Clark: Yes.

Local Authority Expenditure

Penny Mordaunt: What requirements local authorities have to report their expenditure to his Department.

Brandon Lewis: What recent steps he has taken to increase transparency and accountability in local government spending.

Eric Pickles: We are replacing bureaucratic accountability to central Government with democratic accountability. People should be able to hold their local council to account over the taxes it spends. More and more local authorities are publishing details of spending items of more than £500 online. Next month, I will consult on a code of recommended practice for local authorities, which will address issues such as scope, formatting and timings for publishing data.

Penny Mordaunt: Although I do not want to add to the administrative burdens of local authorities, it would be useful to have data against which performance, quality and reach of services, and efficiency could be measured. What tools will be made available to this House and the public to do that?

Eric Pickles: It is most important that we continue to press ahead with the agenda and, in particular, with the public right to know how money is being spent. It is no use talking about cuts in public spending and cuts to front-line services when we find that we have excessive pay among chief executives and excessive numbers of middle management, and that local authorities are not offering value for money. So the important thing is that all authorities will put this online. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the Portsmouth, Great Yarmouth and Norfolk authorities have not put these amounts online. I hope that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) will urge them to do so.

Brandon Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I know that Great Yarmouth's authority is set to go live with this online in January. Does he agree that having the new transparency in place will mean that voluntary sector organisations and small businesses across the country will have a much more even playing field when bidding for contracts?

Eric Pickles: Yes, and we will be taking this a step further: not only will voluntary organisations be able to compare the costs and the spending, and the public will be able to judge those, but in the new localism Bill we will give voluntary organisations the right to bid for services and to run them directly if they can produce them better and more cheaply than local authorities.

David Wright: What plans does the Secretary of State have to encourage local authorities to publish the expenditure that they are undertaking on big society projects? If he has plans to scope out that expenditure, could that report contain a particular section on funding for citizens advice bureaux? The representations that I am receiving suggest that they are going to get a hammering as a result of his funding settlement.

Eric Pickles: They should not get a hammering, as that would be foolish of local authorities. That applies whether the authority is Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative or hung; it applies to councils of whatever colour. If local authorities seek to deal with this country's financial crisis by simply paring back on grants, salami slicing and taking X% out of all departments, they will fail. They have to restructure, they have to change and they have to share services. If they do not do that, they will rue the day when they cut back on Citizens Advice and similar voluntary organisations.

Karen Buck: On the issue of reporting expenditure to central Government, and pursuant to the Secretary of State's previous answer about protecting the front line, has Westminster council informed him of its intention to close a disability centre that provides luncheon facilities and a hydrotherapy pool to many severely disabled people, many of whom are also losing their levels of care services, as they, too, are being retrenched?

Eric Pickles: I will look into that issue and write to the hon. Lady. I have to say that Westminster council has a fantastic record in dealing with vulnerable people, but I will look into the specific case.

Localism Bill

Julian Sturdy: When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

Nadhim Zahawi: When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

Julian Smith: When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

Zac Goldsmith: When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

Greg Clark: The localism Bill contains a wide range of measures to shift power from central Government into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. The Bill frees local government from central and regional control and strengthens local democracy. In addition, it gives greater power over planning, housing and other services and allows councils and councillors to be better held to account. The Bill will be published imminently.

Julian Sturdy: I thank the Minister for his response. May I ask him to go into a little more detail on how the localism Bill, through empowering local people, will help protect the green belt in my constituency of York Outer?

Greg Clark: Of course. One of the real opportunities in the localism Bill is to remove the threat to the green belt that comes from the regional spatial strategies. The concern up and down the country that green belts could be deleted through those strategies will be buried once and for good by the localism Bill.

Nadhim Zahawi: I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that material consideration should be given by councils to circular 01/06 on Gypsies and Travellers, although some, including mine, have not been doing so. May I ask the Minister to outline what benefits that will present to neighbourhoods and to villages such as Welford-in-Avon in my constituency?

Greg Clark: The Leader of the Opposition has said that the previous Government looked down their noses at local government. Nowhere was that more true than in the case of parish councils. The charge of parochialism needs to be turned round and we need to regard an interest in locality through parishes as a positive measure. The localism Bill will allow parishes, as neighbourhoods, to set their own plans, to have them adopted and to give effect to them in the planning system.

Julian Smith: May I ask my right hon. Friend to go a bit further on the role of parish councils? Skipton and Ripon is packed with hundreds of excellent parish councils and they are asking me what specific role they have in relation to district councils. Will he go into a bit more detail on that?

Greg Clark: The planning provisions in the localism Bill will allow every neighbourhood in the country, including parishes, to set its own local neighbourhood plan. That will mean that they can design the look and feel of their neighbourhoods going forward into the future and in so doing take away the bureaucracy that is involved in taking planning applications through the development control process. If we capture it in the plan, we will not have that bureaucracy and uncertainty.

Zac Goldsmith: I welcome the Government's commitment to include local referendums in the localism Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the results of those referendums are not binding, their status will be only marginally higher than that of an ordinary petition, although they will be a lot more expensive? Will he bring in proper referendums that are legally binding?

Greg Clark: I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion of referendums, as he has organised one in his own constituency. The localism Bill contains binding referendums on subjects such as whether to introduce mayors, the neighbourhood plans that I mentioned earlier and excessive increases in council tax. It also contains provisions for advisory referendums that will test public opinion and can influence policies. Sometimes it is appropriate to nudge councils to do the right thing. This will be perhaps more of a shove than a nudge, and I think it will be difficult to ignore.

Ben Bradshaw: How can the Minister keep a straight face when he talks about localism and local democracy when later today his Government will ram through legislation to take away that local democracy from Exeter and Norwich with our recently restored unitary status?

Greg Clark: I am advised that the right hon. Gentleman did not even table an amendment to the Bill, such is his commitment. I shall stand corrected if I am wrong. During the previous Government's time in office, this country became one of the most centralised countries. We want to revive local democracy by transferring power from central Government to local government and down to communities. We will take no lectures from the Opposition, who have driven that centralisation.

Jonathan Edwards: What discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh Government on devolving extra powers to the National Assembly under the localism Bill?

Greg Clark: We have had discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government. Clearly, if we want to devolve powers to the lowest possible level, those discussions will vary according to the different provisions in the Bill. It is quite a detailed matter and the hon. Gentleman will see the outcome of the discussions when the Bill is published.

Clive Efford: Will the Minister say what proportion of local expenditure should be raised locally, thereby bringing direct accountability to local communities on delivering localism?

Greg Clark: I do not think it is terribly localist to prescribe what that percentage should be, but it is right that as we take a more localist direction, we want a greater connection between the behaviour of local councils and the revenue being raised. That is the direction in which we are going, but it would be wrong to prescribe a percentage.

Caroline Flint: Two weeks ago the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully when he scrapped regional housing plans, comparing him with Henry VIII. His Majesty's reply was that it did not matter because the Government were going to abolish them in the localism Bill anyway, but that could take nine months to become law and the confusion that the Government have created has undermined the construction industry and led local councils to ditch 1,300 new homes every day. Will the Minister confirm that, in the mean time, local councils should get on with supporting the construction of the homes that the country so badly needs?

Greg Clark: The right hon. Lady makes a mistake that afflicted the Government of whom she was a member-the fatal flaw of confusing plans with homes. In many cases there was an inverse relationship: the higher the target, the lower the number of homes actually built. That is why we want to reform the planning system. The Government's intention has been absolutely clear. There is not a councillor, planner or developer in the country who does not know that the regional strategies are on the way out and will be buried and interred for ever.

Local Authority Funding

John Pugh: What his policy is on the distribution of reductions to local authority funding over the comprehensive spending review period; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Stunell: We will announce our proposals for the local government finance settlement in the usual manner in due course.

John Pugh: It would be rational to accept that the size of the front-loaded cuts coupled with the council tax freeze in the first year will create a huge problem for even prudent local authorities, necessarily giving them less time, less flexibility and less chance of saving front-line services. Does he agree?

Andrew Stunell: No I do not. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we have proceeded at a rapid rate with de-ring-fencing and breaking down the silos between different funds coming to local councils, reducing the number from more than 90 to around 10. We are also putting large sums of money at the disposal of local authorities. I also want to draw his attention to the option that local authorities have of raising their council tax income by up to 2.5% and receiving a compensatory grant so that their residents do not have to bear that cost, thereby protecting residents and giving councils the opportunity to generate more revenue.

Chris Williamson: The Treasury's green book confirms that funding for local councils will be cut by 28% over the next four years, but the spending review framework document says that the Government will limit the impact of the reduction in spending on regions that are heavily dependent on the public sector. As we are all supposed to be in it together and in order to ensure fairness will the Minister confirm that the cuts faced by local councils will be based on their total budget requirement and not on their formula grant? As he knows, the formula grant accounts for up to 80% of the budget requirements of some councils and less than 20% of others.

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the picture is very complex. That is why when the settlement comes, he will see that the Government have responded to the points he has raised.

Squatters

Michael Ellis: What steps he is taking to reduce the number of squatters.

Grant Shapps: On 8 November I published an online guide for home owners affected by squatters, setting out the rights and action they can take. We are also taking steps to help get empty homes back into productive use and will be helping to reduce the scope for squatting by doing this.

Michael Ellis: I thank the Minister for that answer, but we have some long-established squatters in Parliament square. What are we going to do about them?

Grant Shapps: As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government share the concerns about the current state of Parliament square. I can inform the House that we intend to introduce legislation shortly.

Homelessness

Andrew Selous: What recent steps he has taken to reduce homelessness.

Grant Shapps: The Government are committed to tackling and preventing homelessness. We have established a cross-departmental working group on homelessness, taking in eight Departments, and the homelessness grant has been fully protected at £400 million.

Andrew Selous: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Government could learn lessons from the recent successful scheme by the charity Broadway, which got a number of long-term homeless people off the streets and into their own accommodation at an average cost of £794, compared with the many thousands of pounds spent on them while they are on the streets?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Broadway scheme is excellent and innovative. It has taken funding and allowed the people who are involved with homelessness provision and the service users to decide how best to use it. I congratulate Broadway, which has managed to get a lot more done for £794, rather than the average of £3,000. It is an excellent scheme from which others can learn.

Clive Betts: Will the Minister confirm whether now or in the future he plans to reduce homelessness by changing either its definition or the categories of people who are entitled to assistance and re-housing because they are homeless?

Grant Shapps: We have no plans whatever to change the categories of reasonable preference-those categories that councils have to take into account in order to state whether somebody is homeless and, therefore, provide statutory help. We have already changed the terms-the measurement-of homelessness as defined by rough sleeping, which, under the hon. Gentleman's Government, meant that there were only 440 people sleeping rough on the country's streets. We discovered very quickly, once we had counted such people properly, that there are actually 1,294.

New Homes Bonus Scheme (Milton Keynes)

Iain Stewart: If he will estimate the proportion of the funding for the new homes bonus scheme which will be spent in Milton Keynes.

Grant Shapps: The new homes bonus will match-fund the same amount of council tax for every single home built for an additional six years, and we have published a very helpful calculator on the Department's website, where people can go today to find out how much they will get for the additional homes built.

Iain Stewart: I warmly welcome the new homes bonus, which will go a long way to providing the infrastructure that new housing estates need, but will local authorities have the discretion to use that bonus for capital and revenue items?

Grant Shapps: The new homes bonus is available for local authorities to spend as they see fit. Under the localism Bill and the flexibility that we now provide, it is absolutely possible for local authorities to use that money potentially even to borrow against, because the income stream is guaranteed for six years. It is a simple, very straightforward approach to making sure that people get more money to their area. To give Members an indication of the calculator, I should say that for every 100 homes that are built in any given area £1 million is likely to go to it over the six-year period.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose-

Mr Speaker: Specifically on Milton Keynes, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)?

Fiona Mactaggart: Milton Keynes and Slough are both in the same region, and they both face similar issues, because the homes in their areas are more likely to be in a lower council tax band than the homes in neighbouring areas. Is it fair that those neighbouring areas, which build bigger, richer houses, will get more money than places such as Milton Keynes and Slough, which have more band D places?

Grant Shapps: We can usefully draw out a couple of points from the consultation that is before the House. First, we have set the banding equally throughout the country, so a band D home represents the average band D home throughout the country. Secondly, bigger homes obviously take up more space, so people will get less money because they cannot build as many. Thirdly, the hon. Lady will be interested to know that we have over-compensated for affordable house building, ensuring that every single affordable home that is built will get more than £350 in additional money. That represents a figure of more than 125% for every affordable home built. We should get more built-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am very grateful to the Minister.

Community Ownership (Assets and Facilities)

Esther McVey: If he will take steps to encourage community ownership of local assets and facilities.

Andrew Stunell: The Government will make it easier for communities to take on community assets through the community right-to-buy provisions in the localism Bill. Practical help is already available from the Government-funded asset transfer unit and from the Communitybuilders programme, and the big society bank will step in to help social enterprises and voluntary sector organisations early next year.

Esther McVey: Does the Minister agree that the Government need to do more to empower communities to improve their local areas and take over amenities, such as community centres and allotments? What steps will the Government take to ensure that those initiatives are taken up in the forthcoming localism Bill?

Andrew Stunell: First of all, I commend Wirral borough council for setting up its own fund for the transfer of community assets and for making the launch of those much more feasible. I hope that other local authorities will look at that example.
	The community right to buy will be a powerful option for neighbourhoods and community groups that want to take on assets, and that will be backed by money. The asset transfer unit and Communitybuilders, a project lasting through to 2014, will be there to provide support. I also want to make quite sure that the House understands that the big society bank will be there to assist as well.

Empty Homes

Amber Rudd: What steps his Department is taking to return empty homes to productive use.

Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend's question is well timed, as it is empty homes week. I am sure that there will be concern right across the House at the fact that there are currently 738,000 empty homes in this country and that more than 300,000 of those have been vacant for six months or more. They are a blight on the community and a waste of housing that we cannot afford.
	The coalition agreement says clearly that we are planning to tackle the issue, and we have made the first steps. We intend to provide £100 million over the spending review period to bring empty homes back into use-that is a tripling of the money contributed by Labour in the last comprehensive review period. We are consulting on how the new homes bonus can also be used to bring more homes back into use.

Amber Rudd: In Hastings, more than 2,300 families are on the housing waiting list and there are more than 800 empty homes. Has the Minister considered whether there is any additional incentive that we can give to councils to try to bring the more difficult properties, which have been empty for more than two years, back to productive use, as against the slightly easier properties, which have been empty for six months?

Andrew Stunell: Every effort needs to be made by local councils. They have some statutory tools at their disposal-statutory improvement notices, enforced sales and the empty dwelling management orders. However, I hope that the fact that we are tripling the investment for bringing empty homes across the country back into use will give my hon. Friend some assurance that we are serious about the issue and will work with local authorities to deliver a much improved record.

Graham Jones: I am glad that you have mentioned that there are 738,000 empty properties, many of them long-term empty. Can you give some quantitative indication of-

Mr Speaker: Order. I can give no quantitative indication at all, but the Minister might be able to. Carry on.

Graham Jones: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister give a quantitative indication of the extent to which he hopes to reduce the figure over the period-100,000 or 200,000? By how much will he reduce it?

Andrew Stunell: Some £100 million is intended to assist in bringing back 3,000 empty homes into use, and that is direct financial support. I draw the House's attention again to the impact that the new homes bonus can make in increasing that, and there are of course the statutory levers that local authorities should use to make sure that the blight of empty homes is reduced.

Stephen Metcalfe: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks about the new homes bonus. However, will he go a little further and confirm that that bonus will be payable to local councils that bring empty properties back into use, so that councils such as Basildon and Thurrock can benefit from the measure?

Andrew Stunell: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that this is a matter on which we are consulting. We have that intention, and I hope that he will write and encourage us to carry forward that proposal.

Residential Property Tribunals (Park Homes)

Annette Brooke: By what date he expects the residential property tribunals system for park home owners to be in full operation.

Andrew Stunell: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her staunch work on behalf of mobile home owners. Subject to parliamentary approval, we expect residential property tribunals to begin hearing cases under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 in spring next year.

Annette Brooke: I very much welcome the Minister's response. However, I am sure that he is very much aware that it will not address some of the appalling practices to which some park home owners are subjected. What further action will he set in motion?

Andrew Stunell: As my hon. Friend knows, I attended the lobby that she organised, and I have absolutely no doubt about the serious problem that residents face with a small minority of rogue landlords. We need to see how the Tribunals Service can deal with these complaints and matters. Certainly, we shall be looking very hard to see what progress we can make. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is looking at a range of measures that will help to combat the mismanagement and abuse that some residents face, and he will shortly make an announcement on his plans.

First-time Buyers

Geoffrey Robinson: What estimate he has made of the change in number of first-time buyers in the housing market in the last 12 months.

Grant Shapps: According to data from the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the number of first-time buyers has fallen slightly over the past 12 months, by around 5% in total.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that those figures are among the worst ever for first-time buyers? Is he further aware that the calculations put out by the British Bankers Association on Tuesday of this week show that the level of new mortgage approvals is at its lowest for 19 months, and that the level for gross mortgage lending is the lowest for 10 years? This is a disastrous situation for hundreds of thousands of young couples who want to get into the housing market. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in that analysis; I completely concur with it. It is a disaster for first-time buyers. One of the first things I did as Housing Minister was to reverse the policy of the previous Minister to say that I believe in the aspiration of people owning their homes. The reason we ended up with this problem in the first place is related to the enormous deficit and boom and bust, which was led by housing in particular. We need a more stable economy in place-not like the one that we were headed for or like the Irish one, but one that is stable for the long term. That means that cutting the deficit is the No. 1 move. I am also very aware that there are effectively only five lenders on the high street, which means that there is very little competition for first-time buyers. The banking review will report next June. It is very important that competition is opened up and we reverse the situation for first-time buyers.

Topical Questions

David Blunkett: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Eric Pickles: This week my Government will be co-operating with interfaith week, celebrating how faith communities are adding to the well-being of our society. We have published details of our plans to build 150,000 more affordable houses over the next four years. We have welcomed the decision of the Local Government Association's chief executive to take a cut of £200,000 a year, and we hope that more town hall chiefs will follow his example in these austere times.
	At the 2010 British curry awards, the Government paid tribute to the spice industry's £4 billion turnaround-a real bhuna for the British economy. From bin collections to small business tax relief, we will do our utmost to ensure that Britain's curry industry is second to naan.

David Blunkett: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I can hardly follow that.
	The proposal to refund 2.5% of income to councils freezing their council tax next year, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), will have the perverse outcome, will it not, of top-slicing the money from all councils and then rewarding the wealthiest, high rateable value authorities such as Surrey twice as much as the poorer low rateable value authorities such as Hull, Newcastle or Sheffield? Given that those three councils are Liberal Democrat-controlled, will the Secretary of State tell me which conjuring trick he managed to do in persuading the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues that this was fair or even acceptable?

Eric Pickles: I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about the top-slicing. It is in fact new money, and we will not be top-slicing the authorities. I face a great dilemma. As the money that each local authority has varies, the grant differs considerably; he alluded to that. The particular problem I face is the decision taken by the Labour Chancellor to remove £300 million from the working neighbourhoods fund, which will hit Sheffield particularly hard. At the moment, I am trying to ensure that Sheffield and all those authorities are cushioned against Labour cuts.

Anne McIntosh: Mindful of the recent floods in Cornwall and the fact that from April next year, upper-tier and unitary authorities will have responsibility for flood risk management strategies, will the Secretary of State confirm that money for that purpose will be guaranteed in the comprehensive spending review? Will he please apply planning policy guidance note 23 to inappropriate developments on floodplains?

Bob Neill: Our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs remain committed to funding fully local authorities' new burdens under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Up to £36 million a year in total will be provided directly to lead local flood authorities for all those new burdens, and in addition local authorities will spend money supported by formula grant from our Department. I will certainly consult my colleagues on the PPG to which my hon. Friend refers.

Caroline Flint: It is not really turning out to be a very good day for the Secretary of State, but you know what? It has not actually been a very good fortnight since he told council leaders on 6 November that talk of front-loaded cuts was "fiction". Now it seems that reality is beginning to dawn on him. According to a report in the  Local Government Chronicle, he has been attending emergency meetings with the Treasury to plead for more money to mitigate the effect of those cuts, which could mean some councils losing up to 20% of their funding by April 2011. Whether or not it is true that the Secretary of State has been lobbying the Treasury to come up with more cash, may I urge him to start listening to the concerns of local government and ensure that councils get a fair deal that stops the damage caused by the heaviest cuts falling in the first year?

Eric Pickles: I am sorry to say to the right hon. Lady that I have not necessarily found the  Local Government Chronicle a very accurate reflection of what is going on in my Department, ripping read though it undoubtedly is. I must also admonish her in the mildest possible terms for using a partial quote. What I said was ridiculous was the idea that councils would face a 20% cut in their total spending ability in the first year.
	The right hon. Lady has to recognise that she needs a policy. She knows, I know and the House knows that the Labour party Government were going to impose £5 billion-worth of cuts on local government, which would have been front-loaded.

George Eustice: Analysis of the impact of reforming the formula grant on concessionary travel support suggests that most of the options currently being considered have urban-centric criteria and therefore could lead to more money going to urban areas and less to rural areas. What assurance can my hon. Friend the Minister give to places such as Cornwall, which rely on concessionary fare support, that they will not be disadvantaged by the changes?

Bob Neill: I understand very well the concern that my hon. Friend raises and the importance of the issue, particularly for shire districts. He is right that we have consulted on that, and we are considering the results of that consultation. I have to ask him to be patient, because we will announce our proposals for the local government finance settlement in the usual manner in due course.

Alan Whitehead: What incentive does the Minister think cities such as Southampton will have, under the terms of the new homes bonus, to avoid losing millions of pounds of housing funding by having to build more homes each year than have been built in the city since the aftermath of the second world war, and on land that, because of the urban nature of such cities, does not actually exist?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, because people often say that more homes cannot be built in a city, so perhaps the new homes bonus will not operate there. Interestingly, however, when I go to some of the most crowded places, such as Kensington and Chelsea or Westminster, I am told that even those areas have space to build and will benefit greatly from the bonus. I recommend that his local authority looks for some of the space it has and gets building.

Nigel Adams: Will the Secretary of State inform the House what guidance there will be following the proposed revocation of planning circular 04/07 to inform local authorities such as mine in Selby about planning permission for travelling show people or others wishing to develop land for use as a permanent site for travelling show people?

Eric Pickles: I have had a meeting with the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, kindly organised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley). We talked about what would replace those planning guidelines, and we will do our best to meet what the guild is looking for-sensible co-operation with local authorities.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Many small voluntary organisations in my constituency that provide services to the most vulnerable, such as Durham Action on Single Housing, are extremely concerned about their futures following local government cuts. What will the Minister do to ensure that homelessness does not increase in my constituency and elsewhere as a result of the cuts to local government spending?

Greg Clark: It is very important that every local authority reflects on the contribution that the voluntary sector can make. We are decentralising funds from central Government to local government, and I expect local government not to draw up the drawbridge, but to treat voluntary organisations fairly and, indeed, to allow them greater access so that they can provide more services than they currently do.

Jane Ellison: The Secretary of State recently visited the Nine Elms development area, which includes Battersea power station in my constituency. We talked about the importance of tax increment financing being available to councils involved in major regeneration projects. Will he press for TIFs to be brought in as soon as possible?

Eric Pickles: I thought the development was very interesting. It will transform the south of the river; indeed, Members of the House will be able to look across to one of the more exciting developments in our capital. I very much recall my visit, which was just before my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced our intention to move forward on TIFs at the Liberal party conference. We will be including this in the localism Bill, which will be introduced in this House very soon.

Luciana Berger: On Monday, the Government set out plans to reform social housing, including the scrapping of guaranteed long-term tenancies. These reforms have been described by leading charities as
	"a deliberate attack on the poorest in society".
	Does the Housing Minister agree with the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, who said of the Government's proposal:
	"it is not a Liberal Democrat policy, it is not a coalition policy, it was not in the election manifesto of either party, it was not in the coalition agreement...our party would need a lot of persuading that it has merit"?

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that, because a lot of misinformation has been put about on these reforms. For one thing, on the flexible tenure-the idea that a tenure from two years could be provided-we are thinking about special cases, such as that of my constituent Matthew Hignett, who was paralysed from the neck down after a motorcycle accident. He cannot apply under any of the current rules for social housing, but thanks to flexible tenure-because we are making the system more flexible-he will now actually get the help and assistance that he requires. Some of the charities have made comments on that, but some, such as the YMCA, have said that they appreciate and welcome flexible tenure, so, no, I do not agree with the hon. Lady's comments.

Mark Lancaster: My constituents welcome the fact that Milton Keynes council will become the sole planning authority for the city, but they are concerned that some of the assets currently controlled by Milton Keynes Partnership may not be used for community purposes. Will the Minister meet a delegation from the city to discuss some innovative ideas about how those assets could be used?

Eric Pickles: It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, and I look forward to meeting him and representatives from Milton Keynes in due course.

John Mann: What support will the Secretary of State give the campaign that I am launching to ensure the retention in Retford of the full-time fire station and service, which has been there ever since the inception of local government?

Bob Neill: It is for individual fire authorities to decide the manning levels and the nature of the duty systems at fire stations, consistent with their obligations under fire services legislation and their integrated risk management programmes. It is not for the Government to interfere, because those authorities are best placed to assess the needs, priorities and risks in their areas.

David Ward: Will the Minister confirm whether the requirement on local authorities to front-load the budget reductions is in any way connected to the protection of the Olympics budget?

Eric Pickles: No, it is not.

Barry Gardiner: What steps did the Secretary of State take within the Government to protect communities in London and the south-east that have not been able to take advantage of the national insurance holiday that other areas have enjoyed, precisely because they were more, rather than less, reliant on public sector workers? Surely, that must have stuck in the Secretary of State's craw just as much as it did in mine.

Eric Pickles: There needs to be consistency from Opposition Members. They cry, "What are the Government doing to help the north of England?" but the national insurance holiday is a tangible measure that the previous Government were unable to take. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate this Government. After all, only when we get through the reduction in public expenditure and get our economy back on to an even keel can we look forward to-

Mr Speaker: Order. I thank the Secretary of State.

George Hollingbery: Will the Minister give a brief account of progress on the FiReControl contract?

Bob Neill: The Government inherited the FiReControl contract from the previous Government. As I have indicated to the House already, we have concerns about the contractor's persistent delays in delivery. In consequence, on 8 November, we placed the contractor in material breach, which requires a response within 20 working days.

Heidi Alexander: In October, the Secretary of State told the House that it was outrageous for me to suggest that the money announced in the comprehensive spending review for elderly care would be wiped out by overall cuts to local government. Will he tell me what he disagrees with in the London Councils' estimate that overall funding, in relation to the personal social services budget, will decrease by £885 million, or including inflation, £1.8 billion?

Eric Pickles: I think that the London Councils' analysis is overblown, and that it errs a little on the side of hysteria. Let us be clear. What we know is that the local government settlement is £6.5 billion for supporting people, and, so far as care for the elderly is concerned, an extra £2.2 billion will come directly from the NHS.

Duncan Hames: Further to my questions in the House, the Secretary of State has challenged local government to get its house in order on executive pay-offs. Will he therefore commend the approach taken by Bristol city council, which has applied a cap of £700 per week in redundancy payments for each week's pay in the settlement? That has cut redundancy costs by 30%, and it affects only the highest paid 10% of the work force.

Bob Neill: It is absolutely right that Bristol council has used existing flexibilities to reflect the circumstances that apply to it. That is the right approach, and why, as I indicated in relation to a previous question, it would be inappropriate for the Government to restrict the ability of local authorities to respond to their own circumstances in such matters.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 29 November will include:
	Monday 29 November-A motion relating to banking reform, followed by a general debate on the regulation of independent financial advisers. The subject for both debates was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 30 November-Opposition day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on school sport funding, followed by a debate on tuition fees-both debates will arise on an Opposition motion-followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2010.
	Wednesday 1 December-Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, followed by a general debate on national policy statements.
	Thursday 2 December-Motions relating to the publication of information of complaints against Members, power of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to initiate investigations, and lay membership of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, followed by a debate on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The subject for debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 3 December-Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 6 December will include:
	Monday 6 December-Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 7 December-Second Reading of the European Union Bill.
	Wednesday 8 December-Estimates day (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on police funding for 2011-12 and the Department for International Development's assistance to Zimbabwe. Further details of the second of those debates will be given in the  Official Report.
	 [The information is as follows:  "DFID's Assistance to Zimbabwe" (8th report from the International Development Committee of Session 2009-10, HC 252); Government response, Cmd 7899 .]
	At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Thursday 9 December-Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
	The House will also wish to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his statement on the autumn forecast on Monday 29 November 2010. I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 2 and 9 December will be:
	Thursday 2 December-A debate on fisheries.
	Thursday 9 December-A debate on the future of pubs.

Hilary Benn: I thank the Leader of the House for his answer. Will he confirm that there will be the debate on Europe that traditionally takes place before the December European Council? The Foreign Secretary said in the Queen's Speech debate that it would happen in good time, and this one will be especially important given the problems affecting a number of eurozone countries.
	We now know that the vote on lifting the cap on tuition fees will take place before Christmas-in other words, long before the promised White Paper on higher education. As the Government are clearly desperate to get this out of the way, will the Leader of the House assure the House that the necessary orders will be taken and voted on on the Floor of the House, so that every single voter can see every single Liberal Democrat MP who goes through the Aye Lobby and breaks the pledge that they made? It is not so much the new politics, but very old politics-say one thing, do another.
	Talking of which, two weeks ago the Deputy Prime Minister said that he should have been more careful about signing the pledge. This morning, we learn that he now "massively regrets" not keeping his word. Can we expect a further statement next week from him that he is now really, really, really sorry about breaking his word, and if so, can we have a debate on crocodile tears and could he lead it?
	Last week, the Bill that will reduce by 50 the number of representatives in this House-to cut the cost of politics, we are told-had its Second Reading in the other place. In the very same week, the Government decided to increase by 54 the number of new life peers in the other place. I make that a net gain of four parliamentarians, so can we have a debate on incoherence, and could the Deputy Prime Minister lead that one as well?
	Two weeks ago, I raised with the Leader of the House the Education Secretary's arbitrary decision to take away all the funding from school sport partnerships, which, as we know, have been highly successful in getting more children to take up sport, including 1 million more doing competitive sport. Yesterday, extraordinarily, the Prime Minister chose to describe that as "pathetic" and "failing". I will give the Leader of the House some other words that have been used by those involved to describe the decision-"unforgivably cynical", "despicable", "catastrophic" and "heartbreaking". May we have a debate on irrational decision making, so that the Prime Minister can first apologise for rubbishing the efforts of all the people who have made this happen and secondly explain why he has not told his hapless Education Secretary to think again?
	Christmas is coming, and some geese are getting very fat indeed. I refer, of course, to the traditional start of the bankers' bonus season. Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to confirm that he will enact Labour's legislation to provide transparency on salaries and bonuses of more than £1 million a year, and yet in the very same week we were told that the Minister for Housing and Local Government wants local authorities to require new council tenants to disclose how much they get paid. Apparently, that is in case their earnings are too high, in which case they could be evicted from their homes after just two years. Given that the Government now have one rule for bankers and another for just about everyone else, can we have a debate on double standards? And could that be led by the Deputy Prime Minister as well?
	Finally, last week, Lord Young was sacked for saying that we have never had it so good. On the day that the happiness index is officially launched, will the Leader of the House like to take this opportunity to make it clear that the personal happiness that he expressed last week is not at an all-time high? Given that the Prime Minister is ruthless when it comes to people saying the wrong thing, but useless when it comes to Ministers doing the wrong thing, we would hate to lose the Leader of the House simply for being too cheerful.

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the range of questions that he asked. On his first question, I would remind him of paragraph 145 of the Wright Committee report, which was accepted by both sides of the House and which we are implementing-something that his party refused to do. Paragraph 145 makes it absolutely clear that the days for the pre-European Council debates are now a matter for the Backbench Business Committee-something that we established, which he and his party failed to do in office. Therefore, the question of that debate falls to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and her Committee, not the Government.
	On tuition fees, we hope that the motion that will be tabled by the Opposition on Tuesday will clarify whether the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the Opposition is in charge of Opposition policy, and whether there will be a commitment to a graduate tax. We wonder whether the shadow Chancellor will wind up that debate, so as to make it absolutely clear that his views are the same as those of the Leader of the Opposition. On the specific question that the shadow Leader of the House posed, the answer is yes: there will be a debate on the Floor of the House and a vote on lifting the cap on tuition fees.
	I will take no lectures from the Labour party on the appointment of life peers. We could not conceivably match the record of the Labour party and Tony Blair in appointing people to the upper House, however long we were in office. I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that some of those nominated last week for the upper House came from his party. If they want to make a contribution to reducing the size of the upper House, to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's injunction, it is perfectly open to them not to take their seats.
	There will be a debate on school sports on Tuesday, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but in response to the substantive issue I can tell him that the coalition Government are anxious to devolve decisions down to the local level. We have removed ring fences in local government and education, because we think that it is right to let local people decide how best to allocate the funds. That is what has happened to school sports.
	On bankers' bonuses, we are doing exactly what Sir David Walker recommended. Labour appointed Sir David Walker to look at bankers' bonuses, and he is absolutely clear that this country should not take unilateral action. We are following the advice of the person whom the previous Government commissioned.
	On tenancies, it is important that people do not go around saying that after two years people will be evicted. That is not the policy at all. We are suggesting that some tenancies be initially for two years, and the position reviewed. It is in the interests- [ Interruption. ] It is in the interests of those on the waiting list that there should be more mobility in the social housing stock, in order to make progress in allocating homes to those who desperately need them.
	On the happiness index, mine went down this morning when I heard that England had been bowled out for less than 300, but I am sure that they will rebound. However, I would just ask the right hon. Gentleman how happy he is in a shadow Cabinet where his party leader is being undermined by fellow members, and where they are at war with each other on the 50p tax and the graduate tax, as well as on other issues, such as whether there should be one member, one vote for leadership elections. I think that the shadow Leader of the House will find that we on the Government Benches are far happier than he is.

Michael Fallon: May we have an early debate on the proposed cuts to the staffing hours and acquisitions budget of our Library? The Library is one of the few resources available to all Members in their work of scrutinising the Executive. Given that importance, there must be other areas where savings could be made, not least in the top-heavy bureaucracy of this House.

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Finance and Services is seeing how reductions of around 17% might be made in the House of Commons budget. I know that the Committee will want to pay serious attention to his view that, if reductions are to be made, they should not be made at the sharp end, and nor should they take away from the ability of Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account. I pay tribute to the work that the Library does in that respect.

David Winnick: In view of the launch of the happiness index-mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)-on which the Prime Minister is so keen, will we get a statement in the near future on how happy are those who will be the subject of the savage cuts in jobs and services that are coming shortly? As far as yesterday's demonstration is concerned, it was marvellous, and gives a lead to others to follow.

George Young: I do not think I have ever seen the hon. Gentleman look happy. Wherever the index is, it will be dragged down by his appearance in the House. I wonder whether, on reflection, he would describe yesterday's demonstration as "marvellous". Hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage was done in Westminster, and the demonstration was ruined by a minority of irresponsible people. I pay tribute to the way in which the police responded.

John Leech: In the light of the imminent publication of the report of the Select Committee on Transport on the North review, can we have a debate on the future of drink and drug policy?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government will introduce a police Bill, which will cover issues relating to alcohol licensing, and that may provide the opportunity for my hon. Friend to clarify his views on those issues. We take the matter seriously, and we are moving towards publication of a document on drug policy.

Peter Soulsby: In response to my question last week, the Leader of the House kindly agreed to arrange for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to publish a list of land owned by the Forestry Commission in each constituency. We now have that list, and it shows that more than 170 constituencies will be affected by the fire sale of our national assets. In view of the widespread concern on both sides of the House, can we have a debate in Government time on the way in which the sale is proceeding and its threat to our natural national assets?

George Young: The House will have an opportunity to debate the Public Bodies (Reform) Bill when it has completed its passage in another place, and that will be the right forum for the hon. Gentleman to make clear his concerns about disposal of national forests.

Anne Main: In the light of the announcement this week about the proposed cap on immigration, can we have an early debate on the need to provide skilled, ethnic cuisine training, because the curry industry and other ethnic cuisines will be particularly hit by that announcement?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That point may have been made on Tuesday during the exchange following the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The point was well made, and there would be no need to import chefs from Bangladesh and other countries if we were able to provide the necessary skills in this country. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

Lilian Greenwood: On Monday, the Government announced that a £200 million project to transform the Meadows estate in Nottingham will not go ahead. The estate suffers from serious deprivation, a poor reputation, fear of crime, and high unemployment. Although local people and community groups, such as the Meadows Partnership Trust, are doing wonderful work to tackle those problems, they are hampered by poor housing and poor quality infrastructure. The scheme would have transformed the area, making the Meadows estate a more sustainable community and a place where people would choose to live and work. Can we have a debate on the decision by the Department for Communities and Local Government to scrap the housing private finance initiative, which has so dismayed my constituents?

George Young: We have, of course, just had questions to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was able to ask her question then.
	The Decentralisation and Localism Bill will devolve more responsibility to local authorities, but I say in response to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that, because of the legacy that we inherited, it is not possible to go ahead with all the projects that are being urged on us by Opposition Members. I remind Opposition Front Benchers that the shadow Chancellor has insisted on a nine-stage process before they enter any financial commitments.

John Stevenson: Improvements in sporting facilities wherever possible and certainly in my constituency are always welcome. The coalition agreement states:
	"We will use cash in dormant betting accounts to improve local sport facilities and support sports clubs."
	Will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate on that matter, which would be very beneficial to my constituency?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) to do some work on dormant betting accounts, and I understand that he has made some inquiries and before the end of the year will produce a report suggesting how the matter might be taken forward. There may be a possibility of legislation later.

Frank Doran: I note the response of the Leader of the House to the question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House on the Europe debate. We have exactly the same situation with the annual fisheries debate, which always took place during Government time, and provided a key opportunity for those of us with fishing constituencies to hold the Government to account. I have been advised by the Minister with responsibility for fisheries that his Department is no longer allowed to organise such a debate, which seems strange. Will the Leader of the House advise me why the Government have chosen to use the extension of democracy to Back Benchers to reduce Departments' accountability?

George Young: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the House of Commons Commission last night. I find this line of attack from Opposition Members astonishing. The Government decided to give up their responsibility for deciding what the House would debate, and we have allocated roughly one day a week to the Backbench Business Committee. Among the issues for which we are no longer responsible are the fisheries debate, the European Council debate and the four days of debate on defence. Those matters now fall to the Backbench Business Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman wants a debate on the European Council or on fisheries he has to go to the Committee's Chair, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who is sitting next to him. He will know that her Committee has allocated time for a debate on fisheries in Westminster Hall, which I announced a few moments ago.

Andrew Rosindell: May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motions 1046 and 1047?
	 [That this House recognises the enormous contribution by members of Her Majesty's Armed Services from each of the UK Crown Dependencies in wars and conflicts over the years, fighting for Queen or King and Country; believes that the sacrifices of all these brave men and women should be fully acknowledged in a similar way to members of the Commonwealth of Nations, by granting representatives from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark the right to lay a wreath in their own right at the annual Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, each year on Remembrance Sunday; and calls on the Government to ensure that all the appropriate arrangements for this to happen are in place in time for Remembrance Sunday to be held on 13 November  2011 .]
	 [ That this House recognises the enormous contribution by members of Her Majesty's Armed Services from each of the British Overseas Territories in wars and conflicts over the years, fighting for Queen, or King and Country; believes that the sacrifices of all these brave men and women should be fully acknowledged in a similar way to members of the Commonwealth of Nations, by granting representatives from Ascension Island, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands the right to lay a wreath in their own right at the annual Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, each year on Remembrance Sunday; and calls on the Government to ensure that all the appropriate arrangements for this to happen are in place in time for Remembrance Sunday to be held on 13 November  2011 . ]
	They deal with the laying of a wreath on Remembrance Sunday by representatives of the British Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Chancellor to make a statement to the House on why our British territories are still refused the right to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday to remember their war dead, while other Commonwealth countries are allowed to do so?

George Young: My hon. Friend has pursued this issue with diligence. I think I am right in saying that the Foreign Secretary lays the wreath on behalf of the British Crown dependencies, but I will of course raise this important issue with him and others, to see whether we might make some changes in the future.

Mike Gapes: In previous years, questions about Europe and matters for debate prior to European Councils have always been dealt with in Government time. Instead of hiding behind the wording of the Wright report, will the Leader of the House explain the real reason that the Government are afraid to have a debate prior to the European Council on 19 December? Is it because of internal divisions with his Eurosceptics, or is it because he cannot get an agreement with the Fib Dems?

George Young: Again, I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should criticise the Government for implementing a measure that empowers Back Benchers. We have given up the monopoly on deciding what the House debates. Paragraph 145 of the Wright report deals with set-piece debates, and one of the subjects mentioned is
	"two days for pre-European Council debates".
	It makes it absolutely clear that the responsibility for fixing those debates transfers to the Backbench Business Committee. We have honoured our obligations and set up the Backbench Business Committee; it is now for the Committee to decide which debates are held and when. We cannot have a position in which the Government transfer the days to the Committee but remain responsible for fixing all the debates that would be held on those days. Even the hon. Gentleman must be able to see that that would be a very one-sided deal.

Julian Huppert: Will there be an opportunity for the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about the use of kettling, particularly with regard to schoolchildren?

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be answering questions in the normal way. As I have said, I think that the police handled yesterday's demonstration well. It was an enormous improvement on what happened last time. I am not going to criticise from the Dispatch Box the tactics that they used in order to protect public property and prevent more extensive damage from being done, but there will be an opportunity at the next Home Office questions for my hon. Friend to raise that issue.

Mark Tami: I welcome the fact that we are having a vote on tuition fees soon, but does the Leader of the House agree that, prior to that debate, it is vital to have a debate on the difference between a pledge and a promise, to assist Lib Dem Members?

George Young: There will be opportunities in the debate on Tuesday and in the subsequent debate on the Browne report and raising the cap on tuition fees. I remind Labour Members that they had a pledge not to introduce tuition fees-a pledge that they broke.

Peter Bone: Yesterday, young violent thugs disrupted a peaceful protest. Those thugs were wearing face coverings so that they could not easily be identified by the police. At the next sitting dealing with private Members' business, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is introducing a private Member's Bill-the Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill-to outlaw such practices. Will the Government make a statement on whether they will be supporting his Bill?

George Young: When that important private Member's Bill is reached, there will of course be a Minister on the Front Bench, and, during the course of the debate, the Minister will make clear the Government's response to the Bill.

Jim Sheridan: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Ministry of Defence on what progress, if any, has been made on compensation payments for the Christmas Island veterans, and, indeed, victims? I say this from a non-partisan point of view, because my own party, when in government, could and should have done more for those people.

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and I will pass on his request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether we can make some progress.

Tobias Ellwood: Mr Speaker, you are the anecdote to verbal diarrhoea- [ Laughter. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the word for which the hon. Gentleman was vainly searching was probably "antidote".

Tobias Ellwood: It is always good to get off to a good start, Mr Speaker. I stand corrected. The rules that you impose during the week are not being adhered to on Fridays in the Chamber. Next Friday, we will debate the Daylight Saving Bill, for which the excellent publication "Time to change the clocks" has been produced-I recommend it to all Members-but my worry is that the Bill will not see the light of day because Members will try to talk it out. Is it not time to change the draconian rules that apply on Fridays to ensure that good ideas are able to be debated by the entire House?

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to prove himself an expert in verbal diarrhoea.

George Young: I congratulate my hon. Friend on a good recovery. If I may say so, Mrs Malaprop would have been proud of him. There is a serious issue about Fridays and about the procedure for private Members' Bills, which he has touched on. The Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into the parliamentary calendar, which will include the use of Fridays. That will absorb the whole question of how we deal with private Members' Bills, and will provide my hon. Friend with an opportunity to make representations to the Committee to determine whether there is another way of dealing with them, in order to overcome the problem that he, eventually, correctly described.

Gisela Stuart: There is clearly surprise and unease on both sides of the House about the fisheries debate and the EU Council debate. The matter was raised last week, not only on this side but on the Lib Dem Benches, and it has been raised again this week. Given that clearly a number of people feel that this decision is wrong, may I ask the Leader of the House what we can do to bring about a change to the recommendations of the Wright report, and to take those matters out of the hands of the Backbench Business Committee?

George Young: I would regard it as a retrograde step if time were taken away from the Backbench Business Committee and given back to the Government. The whole direction of travel is the other way. I have announced the Second Reading of the European Union Bill, which will provide an opportunity to raise European issues. Also, there is going to be a fisheries debate. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, and I have made it absolutely clear that if Members want a debate on the European Council, they have to make representations to the Committee in order to secure such a debate. As I understand it, no such representations have been made.

Nadhim Zahawi: May we have a debate on unaccounted Government spending, and on how that can happen? Bearing in mind the irrational decision making that the shadow Leader of the House mentioned, can we make the specific subject of the debate the £38 billion committed by the Ministry of Defence over 10 years without accountability?

George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we inherited a number of obligations from the outgoing Government, and that the resources were not there to honour them. The Ministry of Defence provides a very good example. We had an opportunity to debate that when we discussed the strategic defence review, but I am sure that there will be other opportunities for my hon. Friend and others to remind the House and the country of the irresponsible action of the outgoing Government and the unsustainable expenditure that they left us to sort out.

Jonathan Edwards: The Leader of the House will be aware of the lead story in the  Western Mail last week, in which it was disclosed that powers have been transferred on numerous occasions to the Welsh Assembly Government without the corresponding financial resources. Will he ask the Chancellor to make a statement on how these liabilities will be addressed?

George Young: I understand that the Welsh Assembly has had a relatively generous settlement compared with that of other public bodies. Against that background, I am not sure how much substance there is in that suggestion.

Kris Hopkins: The Leader of the House will be aware of the media coverage of the predatory paedophiles who were convicted yesterday of grooming and raping children. It is well documented that this vile and criminal activity has also happened in my constituency. Will the relevant Ministers make a statement outlining what the Government are doing to stamp out this abuse of children?

George Young: I am sure that everyone was appalled by what was revealed yesterday. I saw the interview with Emma on "Newsnight" and I was horrified by what had happened. It is crucial to learn the lessons and make sure that that never happens again. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's request to the Secretary of State for Health to see whether some ministerial response might be made to what was revealed yesterday.

Denis MacShane: Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on British representation at the Oslo Nobel peace prize ceremony award to Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese pro-democracy dissident? The Chinese are bullying countries like mad not to turn up. Could we raise our representation to ministerial level and ask our EU and NATO partners also to send Ministers, because the only language bullies understand is that of someone standing up to them?

George Young: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is important that we do not succumb to pressure from the Chinese and that this country-and, indeed, NATO countries and all countries-should send strong representations to the ceremony so that the Chinese understand that on this issue they are alone.

David Tredinnick: Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be better if large and volatile demonstrations were routed away from Parliament to end in a rally in a park, where just grievances and speeches could be heard? Does he agree that the Police Act 2005 has to be amended so that the commissioner can refuse a particular route?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My understanding is that section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows the police to place conditions on a march, where they consider that without such conditions the march would result in serious public disorder. These conditions would include the duration, the location and the size of the march. I therefore think that the police may well already have the powers that my hon. Friend wants them to have.

Ben Bradshaw: May we have a debate on the Government's cruel decision to cut the mobility component of disability living allowance for people living in residential homes, as the Prime Minister seemed totally to misunderstand the question asked about it at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday? We need to discuss the impact of this decision on severely disabled people like my constituent Pam Coughlan.

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did understand the question yesterday. There will be an opportunity to debate this when the Government bring forward the necessary measures in the welfare reform Bill. My right hon. Friend's answer yesterday was that if people are sponsored by the NHS, their mobility component is removed whereas it is not removed if they are sponsored by a local authority. That is an anomaly, which the Government's proposals are designed to address.

Edward Leigh: A serious situation has developed this week in Korea. If the situation deteriorates, will the Leader of the House undertake to ensure that we have a statement? China is launching its first aircraft carrier and America is sending an aircraft carrier there. Does that not underline the fact that the procedures of this House and our defence configuration must be prepared for a very unpredictable and dangerous world?

George Young: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister has been in touch with President Lee of South Korea, making clear this country's condemnation of the unprovoked North Korean attack and offering condolences for the loss of life that has occurred. My right hon. Friend also agreed that we would work together on the next steps that need to be taken in the United Nations Security Council. We are now indeed in discussions with our Security Council partners on those next steps.

Nick Raynsford: In Communities and Local Government questions earlier this morning, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), indicated that the localism Bill was likely to be published imminently. I listened carefully to the statement by the Leader of the House, but I heard no reference to the localism Bill in the business announced for the next two weeks. Given that the Government are clearly having increasing difficulty matching their actions to their words, will the Leader of the House tell us the meaning of "imminent" and whether we can expect a debate on this rather important and controversial Bill before Christmas?

George Young: The Bill will be published shortly. Second Reading will follow after a decent interval.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1090?
	 [That this House notes the Harrington Report, and its criticisms of the French multinational company ATOS, who have a £54 million contract to assess benefit claimants through medical checks; welcomes the Government's agreement with the Harrington Report and its promise to implement the Harrington proposals in full; concludes that ATOS has damaged the public perception of medical assessments, and has also created a serious risk of maladministration of incapacity benefit checks, following the shocking reports on their systems in the national media; further notes frequent complaints in this regard from Harlow constituents and others; and therefore calls on the Government to act swiftly so that medical assessments are more localised, humane and sympathetic.]
	Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the Harrington report and the maladministration of incapacity benefit checks, following the shocking report into the private company ATOS? A number of my Harlow constituents have been maltreated by this company. Does he agree that urgent action is needed?

George Young: We are grateful to Professor Harrington for publishing his report on the work capacity assessment and we accept all his recommendations. He did indeed find that improvements should be made. He has now started the next stage of the next review. We will improve the medical assessment conducted by ATOS by putting in place champions with additional expertise in mental, cognitive and intellectual conditions.

Dave Watts: Given this week's independent report indicating that the removal of speed cameras could lead to 800 extra deaths on our roads and the fact that some Tory councils have already removed their cameras, may we have a debate on the effects of the removal of those cameras and whether those individual councillors should be held directly accountable for their actions?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue relating to road safety, and it strikes me that it would be an appropriate subject for a debate either on the Adjournment, in Westminster Hall or through the Backbench Business Committee. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of Transport, who will be here shortly.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on Burma? I am sure the whole House would welcome the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, but the fact remains that 7,000 political prisoners remain incarcerated. May we have a debate to put pressure on the Burmese Government to be more serious about political dialogue?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right that there are still a substantial number of political prisoners in Burma. I hope that the release of Aung San Suu Kyi will enable her to have a dialogue with the military regime to see whether a way forward can be found that introduces some sensible human rights measures in that regime which are absent at the moment.

Keith Vaz: In recent evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Gun Trade Association, the Countryside Alliance and others expressed concern about the violent content of video games and their effect on some people who buy firearms. At this time of year especially, it is important for parents to have an understanding of the content of some of these games. When can we have a statement or a debate on the Government's response to the Byron inquiry?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the inquiry that his Select Committee is conducting into firearms. We have made a commitment to having a debate when his report is published. That would be a good context in which to explore further the impact on young people of videos and games that involve firearms. We could then establish whether any further legislation was necessary.

Martin Horwood: Given the recent revelation by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that the last Labour Government wasted nearly £81 million developing regional spatial strategies, and given the recent attempts by developers to raise these, zombie-like, from the dead, would it be appropriate to have a debate on regional spatial strategies and their current status?

George Young: This takes us back to the localism Bill. We will shortly, imminently and very soon introduce the localism Bill to Parliament. That will sweep away the last of the outgoing Government's controversial regional strategies. It is clear that top-down targets have not worked; we propose to move to a different regime, giving local planning authorities some real incentives to get on with house building in their area.

Valerie Vaz: Alumwell business and enterprise college in my constituency has seen a 14% improvement in GCSE results by getting marked papers, but it has had to pay for them. May we have an urgent debate so that state schools can get the marked scripts free, just as they do with standard assessment tests?

George Young: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the good results in her constituency. I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education the question of whether these documents can be made available without charge.

Stephen Mosley: Over the past three years, failures in the cross-border commissioning protocol between the Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly Government have caused NHS Western Cheshire to lose about £19 million. Despite having been involved in a formal dispute since 2007, they seem to be no nearer to ending it. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the operation of the protocol?

George Young: I am afraid that I shall not be able to find time for a debate. I understand that the shortfall to which my hon. Friend refers is not due to a failure of the protocol. A transfer was made from the Department of Health to the Welsh Assembly under the terms of the protocol, but discussions are now under way to review the protocol before it expires in March 2011. They will include discussion of the funding arrangement, and I will ensure that they are informed by what my hon. Friend has said.

Diana Johnson: May we have a debate in Government time on whether we really are all in this together, especially those of us who live in the north, in the light of the withdrawal of £160 million for housing from Orchard Park in Hull? Hull is the 11th most deprived area in the country, but its funds are being cut by 25%, unlike those of Reigate and Tunbridge Wells, which are being increased by between 25% and 37%.

George Young: Of course I understand how strongly the hon. Lady feels about her constituency. However, only a few moments ago, when I came into the Chamber, I heard the Government being criticised for focusing help on national insurance relief on the north and not extending it to London and the south-east. Opposition Members must sort out their priorities.
	I suggest to the hon. Lady that the £1 billion regional development fund might be a suitable place for her to seek solutions to the problems that she has outlined.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on broadband? I strongly support the Government's review of broadband and its focus on rural communities, but I fear that cities such as Milton Keynes may miss out. We have specific problems because of our 1970s infrastructure. May I simply ask the Leader of the House to ensure that Milton Keynes is included in the review?

George Young: That question is slightly beyond my pay grade, but my hon. Friend has made a strong case for a debate on rural broadband. I too represent a rural constituency, and I know that it is vital for those who live in rural areas to be able to compete on the same terms as those in towns and cities. I think that the issue is a strong candidate for a debate, but perhaps not in Government time.

Clive Efford: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the shadow Leader of the House, and my hon. Friend the. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on the subject of debates set up by the Backbench Business Committee? The Committee's Standing Orders make no reference to the Committee's having responsibility for those debates. A dangerous precedent is being set, because those on the Opposition Front Bench who are responsible for holding the Government to account cannot do so. The Government have avoided arranging the debates in Government time and Opposition Front Benchers cannot make representations to the Backbench Business Committee. The Government are thus dodging the issue. May we have those debates in Government time?

George Young: Labour Members must make it absolutely clear at some point whether or not they agree with the Wright Committee's recommendations. They supported them throughout the last Parliament, although towards the end of that Parliament they did not implement them by setting up the Backbench Business Committee.
	If the hon. Gentleman reads the Wright Committee's report, he will see that it makes a distinction between Government business and House business, and makes it clear that the debates to which he has referred are House business. It is up to the Backbench Business Committee, which has been allotted 35 days, to find time for those debates-if it wants to hold them-in competition with other bids. We cannot allow a position in which the Government, having allotted 35 days to the Backbench Business Committee, are then held responsible for all the subjects included in the transfer.

Gavin Barwell: Yesterday, when responding to questions about the education White Paper, the shadow Secretary of State for Education suggested that many young people could not be expected to obtain five C-grade GCSE passes in academic subjects. May we have a debate on the depressing poverty of ambition that affects Members in many parts of the House and our education establishments?

George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must raise the ambitions of our young people. Following yesterday's statement there will be an education Bill, which will give Members an opportunity to examine the issues in more depth.

Kevin Brennan: We need a debate on school sports partnerships. We know from his mother that the Secretary of State for Education hated games when he was at school, and avoided them as much as possible. Before we have that debate, will the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State to put on his tracksuit and perhaps a pair of trainers, apply some embrocation, get out into the real world-away from la-la land-with the school sports partnerships, and find out what great work they have been doing?

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear yesterday that he was in favour of competitive sports and regretted the record of the outgoing Government in failing to promote them. If the hon. Gentleman is here on Tuesday he will have the opportunity to make a longer speech, which will be robustly rejected by whoever replies to the debate.

Brandon Lewis: We have already heard Members refer to early-day motions this morning. EDMs are hugely important in enabling Members to raise the profile of issues for themselves, constituents and organisations. However, given that the House is seeking to reduce its costs, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is the right time to arrange a debate so that we can examine the cost of publishing EDMs? The contract with The Stationery Office means that it is currently more than three quarters of a million pounds a year.

George Young: As I said in reply to an earlier question, the Finance and Services Committee is considering how economies can be made in the running of the House. As my hon. Friend may know, older EDMs have not been reprinted weekly since the start of the current parliamentary Session, which has saved 2.5 million sheets of paper and up to £300,000 a year in printing costs. I will pass his comments to the House of Commons Commission and the Finance and Services Committee.

Derek Twigg: May we have an urgent debate on the Government's migration policy? In response to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and me, the Home Secretary said-I cannot do the French accent-
	"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once: we aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament."-[ Official Report, 23 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 183.]
	A few hours later, No. 10 Downing street issued a statement saying that that was an aspiration. If I may use the language of the new Government, is it an aspiration, a target, a milestone or a horizon?

George Young: Before she made those remarks, the Home Secretary said that she would "say this only once", and I think that that was the right thing to do.

Yasmin Qureshi: Will the right hon. Gentleman find Government time for either a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), or the Lord Chancellor, or a debate about the cutting of civil legal aid for social welfare cases? In my constituency, the citizens advice bureau represented or advised 14,000 of the most vulnerable and economically and socially deprived people in the area. The Under-Secretary's response was that people should go and see their Member of Parliament. I am a superwoman, but I do not think that that is the way forward.

George Young: I understand the hon. Lady's concern, but it must be said that the legal aid regime in this country is relatively generous in comparison with those of most other countries. We were not able to exclude it from the difficult decisions that we had to make to control the deficit, but what we have announced requires legislation. There will be a legal aid Bill, which will give the hon. Lady an opportunity to press her concerns.

Tom Blenkinsop: The North East illegal money lending team has helped communities in my constituency to beat loan sharks in communities such as Easterside. It has helped to set up credit unions, and to break up gangs selling counterfeit and fenced goods. Will the Leader of the House please press Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to allow a debate on the subject, and will he impress on them the need for me to have personal meetings with them, along with other Teesside Members, so that we can discuss the agency?

George Young: I commend the group in the hon. Gentleman's constituency for what it has done. I will certainly find out whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can meet him and his colleagues to take the agenda further forward.

Barry Gardiner: This weekend, the Tamil community in the United Kingdom will commemorate the war dead and martyrs from the recent civil war in Sri Lanka. Next week, President Mahinda Rajapaksa is due to come to this country on a private visit, reportedly to speak at the Oxford union. May we have a debate to discuss the situation in Sri Lanka and war crimes associated with its president?

George Young: The Government do not propose to find time for a debate on the issue, however important it is, but it strikes me that it would be an appropriate candidate for an Adjournment debate at the end of one of our sittings.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Luciana Berger.

Luciana Berger: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	My constituent Martine Taylor's husband went missing one year ago. He left behind three young children and tens of thousands of pounds of debt, including two loans worth £34,000 from RBS, a bank which is 80% owned by the taxpayer. RBS has now sold that debt to bailiffs who may force Miss Taylor to sell her home to recover the debt, while RBS refuses to discuss my constituent's case because the debt is not in her name. Please may we have an urgent debate on the debt recovery practices of Government-owned banks?

George Young: I am very sorry to hear of the misfortune of the hon. Lady's constituent. I will raise the current regime for pursuing debts with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and ask him to see whether there is any action the Government can take to help this poor lady and to write to the hon. Lady.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the statement-

Dave Watts: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that points of order follow statements. We will hear from him later.

Rail Investment

Philip Hammond: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's plans for investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock.
	These plans build on the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the outcome of the spending review. As we have consistently said, tackling the deficit is our top priority, and by taking the tough decisions on current spending we are able to secure our future growth by making vital infrastructure investments. Over the next four years, we will provide £14 billion of funding to Network Rail to support capital maintenance and infrastructure investment, and £750 million for high-speed rail. We will also fund the Crossrail project, the tube upgrade programme and light rail projects in Birmingham, Tyneside, Nottingham and Sheffield, and provide additional funding to franchisees for extra rolling stock.
	I can also confirm today that we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times. This huge investment will link Sussex, Kent and Surrey, through central London, with Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. But the original programme for the rebuilding of London Bridge station to increase through-running as part of this project was always ambitious, with substantial risks in respect of delivery and operation of existing services during construction. To reduce these risks, we have re-profiled the delivery of the programme to achieve completion in 2018. This will enable Network Rail to make the further efficiencies in the design and delivery of the programme that we require to ensure value for money. Passengers will start to benefit from incremental improvements on the Thameslink routes from the end of 2011. As part of the Thameslink programme, we will procure a new fleet of trains-up to 1,200 new carriages. That is in addition to about 600 new carriages that will be provided for the Crossrail project.
	Together with the tube upgrades, these projects represent a step change in rail capacity in London, providing a significant boost to economic growth potential in the capital. New Thameslink and Crossrail rolling stock will enable the redeployment of hundreds of serviceable electric carriages currently used on Thameslink services. These carriages belong to rolling stock leasing companies, but we expect they will be available at competitive leasing prices for re-use elsewhere, thus justifying further electrification of our network.
	As a first step, I can announce today that Network Rail will electrify the commuter services on the great western main line from London to Didcot, Oxford and Newbury over the next six years. Electric trains will speed up journeys, improve reliability and reduce the impact on the environment on these busy routes.
	The Chancellor also announced on 20 October the electrification of the lines between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool, representing an investment of up to £300 million. I expect work in the north-west to begin next year and to be completed at about the same time as work on the Thames valley commuter lines, in 2016. Some sections will be completed well ahead of this, notably Manchester to Newton-le-Willows in late-2013, allowing new electric trains to operate from Manchester to Scotland. As with Thameslink, we will require Network Rail to keep a tight rein on costs. The redeployment of electric rolling stock to these routes will, in turn, free up hundreds of diesel units, which will be available to train operators to lease as they become available in the period after 2015.
	This will all be welcome news to passengers. The Public Accounts Committee recently found that many services are unacceptably overcrowded, and I understand the frustrations of rail travellers who have to travel on packed trains. More investment is clearly needed. That is why I argued for additional rail investment in the spending review, and it is also why I have taken the difficult decision to allow regulated fares to rise by 3% above inflation for the three years from 2012, to help us pay for these investments.
	In January 2008, the previous Government published a plan to bring 1,300 additional carriages into service by March 2014. That plan was never deliverable. In total, only 206 of the 1,300 carriages had entered service by May this year. My predecessors quoted a grand total of rail carriages, but never referred publicly to the fact that delivery of that total was subject to so many caveats and qualifications as to render it effectively meaningless. According to their published plan, the 1,300 was not fixed and subject to
	"value for money, affordability...linkages with other interventions or with other rail projects...infrastructure constraints...supply chain constraints"
	and "credibility". The document went on to say that
	"the final outcome could well be different".
	In other words, it was not so much a plan as a press release.
	So let me set the record straight. I can today confirm that an additional 650 carriages will have been delivered to the network between 6 May 2010 and March 2014. That is in addition to the Thameslink and Crossrail carriages I have already mentioned.
	But it is not just about rolling stock. Network Rail has already started work on station improvements, with funding confirmed for developments at Reading, Birmingham, London King's Cross and Gatwick airport. Investments on the east coast main line and midland main line and improvements in Yorkshire, on trans-Pennine routes, around Manchester and in south Wales will improve line speed, reliability and capacity of services.
	Beyond these investments, there are far-reaching decisions to be made about inter-city services. In February 2009 the intercity express programme, launched by the previous Government, identified the Agility Trains consortium as preferred bidder to build a new fleet of inter-city trains. Then, this February, my predecessor invited Sir Andrew Foster, former head of the Audit Commission, to provide an independent assessment of the programme. Sir Andrew presented his report to me at the end of June, recommending further work on the Agility Trains proposal and a detailed study of the alternatives. I can now tell the House that we have narrowed down the options, from the four Sir Andrew identified to two. I have ruled out the option of requiring passengers to change from electric to diesel trains at a point in their journeys, recognising the value to passengers of preserving through-journeys. I have also ruled out the option of a wholesale refurbishment of the existing diesel InterCity 125 fleet, some of which dates back to the 1970s.
	The remaining options are, on the one hand, a revised, lower cost proposal from Agility Trains envisaging a mixed fleet of some all-electric trains and some electric trains equipped with under-floor diesel generators, and on the other hand, a fleet of new all-electric trains which could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric power lines end. Both of these options would allow us to preserve through-journeys between London and parts of the rail network which are not electrified. Both of them would deliver faster journey times too. For example, we expect to see time savings of at least 15 minutes for the journey between Cardiff and London, bringing it below 2 hours. This is a major decision that will affect inter-city rail travel for decades to come, and we must get it right.
	To address the outstanding issues on choice of train type and further electrification on the great western main line, additional work will be required within the Department, with Agility Trains, and with the Welsh Assembly Government on the business case for electrification into Wales. When this work, and discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, has concluded, I expect to announce a final decision on the IEP and on further great western electrification in the new year.
	The package I have confirmed today has been possible only because this Government have been prepared to take the tough decisions to protect investment in Britain's future. This is a commitment to our railways that will benefit Britain for generations to come, and I commend the statement to the House.

Maria Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his much-delayed statement. We first read the details of the statement in the Sunday papers three weeks ago, we read them again two weeks ago and we saw much more detail in the press this morning. I know that he tabled this statement as a written ministerial statement today so that he could get away with spinning it on the "Today" programme, but his whole handling of this announcement is an insult to this House, which should be the first to hear about major Government policy decisions, not the last.
	Despite all the spin and the re-announcing of decisions taken by the previous Government, many passengers will be bitterly disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's announcement today, because it amounts to delaying investment but bringing forward massive fare hikes. The real losers of today's statement are commuters, who already suffer some of the highest fares in Europe and the worst overcrowding. Because of the cuts he has had to make to his budget, their fares will rise by 3% above inflation from next year and they now face waits of up to a decade for the new trains that will ease overcrowding and speed up journeys.
	The statement delays the completion of Thameslink by two years to 2018, following the right hon. Gentleman's previous decision to delay the completion of Crossrail by a year. His Department is already missing its targets for extra spaces by 15% at peak time in London and 33% in other major cities. Does he not understand the frustration there will be at his decision to delay the delivery of the new carriages that are vital to addressing this overcrowding?
	On new carriages, the right hon. Gentleman tries to claim that the plans that Labour announced in government for 1,300 carriages were somehow a work of fiction. Perhaps I could remind him that his permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee in September that
	"it was a commitment of the previous Government to deliver 1,300 carriages, for which they had a £1.2 billion budget."
	He made it clear that
	"we had plans-clear plans-that we could evidence to the National Audit Office...to have acquired around 950 carriages and spent around £900 million."
	He also said that he had plans in place that
	"would enable us to get to probably around 1,300 carriages and to develop the full capacity, using the full budget of £1.2 billion."
	Will the right hon. Gentleman now accept that he has cut the number of new carriages that we planned to be delivered in this spending review period, and that he must stop spinning? Why are commuters going to face overcrowding, which will not be substantially alleviated for almost 10 years, when the fares hikes that he says are to end overcrowding start this January?
	People in Wales will feel most betrayed by the right hon. Gentleman's announcement, following his decision to delay giving the green light to electrification of the great western line beyond Bristol. His manifesto was very clear on this, so let me remind him that it said:
	"We support...the electrification of the Great Western line to South Wales."
	Perhaps no Welsh MP was in the room during the coalition negotiations, because that commitment was subsequently downgraded to a general statement of support for
	"further electrification of the rail network."
	Today, we see why: it was because there was clearly never a commitment to Wales.
	We are told that the Secretary of State for Wales is threatening to resign if high-speed rail goes through her English constituency. She does not seem to be threatening to resign over the fact that Wales, whose interests she represents in the Cabinet and is supposed to champion, is to remain the only European country other than Albania and Moldova with not a single metre of electrified track. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to approve the electrification of the great western main line to Swansea, as was planned by the previous Labour Government?
	The right hon. Gentleman has also today ducked giving the green light to the intercity express programme. We are used to this Government going back on things they promised to do in their manifesto, but today's statement sees him going back even on what he promised in his Department's comprehensive spending review statement this October. I remind him that he said:
	"Because aspects of Thameslink and HLOS rolling stock programmes, as well as projects to electrify the Great Western Mainline, and the rail routes around Manchester and Liverpool, are interdependent with the IEP decision, a full announcement on all these programmes will be made at the same time."
	Will he tell the House what has changed? Will he now tell us the real story behind the repeated delays to today's statement and the real reason he has had to push so many of his decisions into next year? Is it true, as some believe, that by changing the specification of the IEP carriages after a preferred bidder was announced he now risks a legal challenge from other bidders?
	Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman understand the anger felt by passengers up and down the country at his decision to allow rail fares to rise by such a large amount? His coalition agreement said:
	"We are committed to fair pricing for rail travel".
	Can he tell hard-pressed commuters up and down the country why he thinks that allowing rail fares to rise by 3% above inflation after next year demonstrates his commitment to fair pricing? How does driving people off the railways and back into their cars help either our economy or the environment? Does he accept, as his Department has admitted, the very big impact on road congestion that is likely to be caused by his decision?
	Is not the reality that he has come to the House today only because he said in his departmental plan that he would do so by the end of November 2010 and because his repeated briefings to the media have created an expectation that a statement was imminent? Does he not accept that his departmental plan commits him not to a statement, but to decisions? Has he today not just missed the first of his own targets in the departmental plan, which was supposed to be the Prime Minister's way of keeping Secretaries of State on track to deliver Government promises?
	Is not the reality of today's statement that beyond re-announcing a whole series of investment decisions taken by the previous Labour Government and put on hold by him after the election, he has delayed the completion of Crossrail by a year, delayed the completion of Thameslink by two years to 2018, delayed giving the green light to electrification of the great western line beyond Bristol-that is a real betrayal of people in Wales-delayed giving any indication of when electrification of the midland main line will take place and delayed giving the green light to the intercity express programme? His statement pushes the delivery of projects into the next spending review period and ducks decisions on some of the country's most vital transport infrastructure projects. His delayed statement is itself nothing more than one long series of delays.

Philip Hammond: In her second response to me at the Dispatch Box, the hon. Lady adopts a rather churlish tone. She talks about wanting decisions to be made. She will get decisions from this Government, but they will be properly thought through decisions based on value-for-money cases and proper consideration of all the matters that need to be dealt with; they will not be press releases made up on the spur of the moment by a Government who have gone on a regional junket and need something to announce to keep the regional press happy.
	The hon. Lady complains that we issued a written ministerial statement this morning, but she ought to be able to understand that the content of this statement, because it touches, in particular, on the procurement of the intercity express programme, is market sensitive, so it was essential that we made a statement this morning before the markets opened.
	The hon. Lady talks about fares, and I readily acknowledge that nobody in the commuter fraternity will welcome the increase in the cap on regulated fares that we have proposed for 2012 to 2015. But that is one of the tough decisions that we have had to take to protect the programme of investment in our railways. I have to say to her that I see no sign that anybody on the Opposition Front Bench is prepared to take tough decisions or to understand that without the ability and the willingness to do so they will simply have no credibility in the difficult debates on how we prioritise limited public expenditure.
	The hon. Lady criticises the delay in delivering the complete Thameslink project-the 24 trains an hour in both directions. I do not apologise to her or to the House for taking a decision that the programme, as originally set out, contained too many risks-there were risks of cost overruns and risks to existing commuter services into London Bridge station. With Network Rail, we have revised the schedule to create a lower-risk alternative that is both less costly and less disruptive to existing commuter services.
	The hon. Lady talks about the midland main line-she seems to have discovered it this morning. There was not a word about the electrification of the midland main line during the 13 years for which the Opposition were in government, but today she wants to bring it up as though it were some Labour priority we are abandoning. For the record, the case for electrification of the midland mainline remains strong and we will consider it as a project for control period 5, which begins in 2014.
	The hon. Lady attacks me for describing the 1,300 rail carriages to which her predecessors apparently committed as a work of fiction. She is new to the job, I understand, and these are difficult numbers- [ Interruption. ] I am quite new to this, too, and I can tell the House that they are difficult numbers. If she drills down and has a look, she will see that the figure of 1,300 was maintained early this year only by the inclusion of 400 of the 1,200 Thameslink carriages in the total-a complete and ongoing fabrication to avoid abandoning a number that was never sustainable. The Opposition could not have delivered them because they are not prepared to support any of the decisions that have allowed capital investment to continue. They do not support the fare increase, they do not support cuts in welfare expenditure and they do not support cuts in public expenditure to allow prioritisation of capital investment.
	The hon. Lady has the audacity to raise the issue of Wales, but, as she says, Wales has not one metre of electrified railway-after 13 years of a Labour Government. We will take no lectures from her on electrification in Wales.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. As hon. Members can see, a number of them want to ask a question. We are time-limited, but I shall try to call as many Members as I can. You can assist me by asking just one question and, clearly, we need short answers, too. If Members were not in the Chamber for the full statement, I ask them not stand to ask a question: they must have listened to the entire statement.

Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will ensure that the design of the new franchise for Greater Anglia will maximise the incentive to the successful bidder to contribute to investment in track so that passengers on the West Anglia line and the Great Eastern line will get the advantages from such investment as he has outlined in his statement today?

Philip Hammond: I can assure my right hon. Friend that in re-designing the franchise arrangements, as we have committed to do, we will want to consider the opportunities for train operators to contribute to infrastructure improvements and to work more closely with Network Rail. We will also ensure that train operators' financial interests are clearly aligned with passengers' interests so that, under new franchises, when we have an overcrowding problem it will be in the train operator's interest to deal with that problem with its own money rather than, as under the current system, having to come to the Government cap in hand to ask us to solve the problem.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have a direct question for the right hon. Gentleman. Will the outcome of the further long-grass review that he is considering for south Wales, Bristol and the whole line to London deliver rail electrification all the way to Swansea-not to Bristol, but to Swansea? In the run-up to the election in May, all parties stood on a platform of delivering rail electrification all the way to Swansea. The Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), has made a principled point on behalf of her constituents, saying that it is a resigning matter if a different link goes through her constituency. Will she apply the same principle if she fails to deliver rail electrification into Wales?

Philip Hammond: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question to me, but I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales; he will have to address his question to her in person. There has to be a business case for electrification. We will work with the Welsh Assembly Government to strengthen and build that business case over the next few weeks and I shall make an announcement to the House as soon as we have made a decision on the IEP procurement that will cover both IEP and further electrification on the great western main line.

Simon Hughes: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that what was originally called Thameslink 2000 by the previous Government will at last be delivered by this Government. Will the Secretary of State also direct those responsible to ensure not only that we have the new London Bridge station in my constituency, and all that goes with it, but that the maximum number of commuter lines are continued in south London? That is obviously of interest to people who live in London as well as those who live further afield.

Philip Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is quite right to observe that we must get the balance right between building large new infrastructure projects and maintaining existing services. I have been out this morning to the site of the Blackfriars station development and seen just how incredibly difficult it is to build such a major project on a running railway line with trains passing backwards and forwards. It is very complex, and allowing a little extra time will ensure that we do not have catastrophic disruption during the programme.

Louise Ellman: I welcome the news of investment in rail, although I am concerned about the three-year delay in the electrification of the Liverpool-Manchester-Blackpool line as well as the uncertainties on electrification of the great western line. Will the Secretary of State explain the percentage growth in rail that he is planning within these figures so that rail can grow without overcrowding and without the overpricing that drives people off the railways?

Philip Hammond: I do not know where the hon. Lady gets the idea about three years' delay with north-west electrification. As I said, the Manchester to Newton-le-Willows section will be completed in 2013. Work will start next year. The team that is doing the work will then roll on to complete the electrification of the Liverpool-Manchester section and finally the Preston-Blackpool section. It will all be completed by 2016.
	Let me explain the time scale. Electrification will allow the electric carriages released by the delivery of the new Thameslink carriages to be deployed. There is no point completing that electrification, except for the section from Manchester to Newton-le-Willows, until those electric carriages are available. The timetabling is perfectly logical and the early completion of Manchester to Newton-le-Willows will allow brand-new electric trains to be operated on the Manchester to Scotland routes.
	The hon. Lady asked about capacity. The total announcements on Crossrail, Thameslink and the additional 650 carriages to be delivered before 2015 will amount to a 17% increase in the capacity of the network.

Henry Smith: Commuters in my constituency, particularly those who use Three Bridges and Gatwick stations, will greatly welcome-as do I-the announcement about increased rolling stock through Thameslink. Will my right hon. Friend assure my commuters and constituents that the rolling stock will be of the highest available quality to ensure greater comfort and convenience?

Philip Hammond: The trains deployed on the Thameslink route will be brand-new trains with 1,200 brand-new carriages.

Michael Weir: The Secretary of State's statement is the fourth time that the desperately needed new trains for the east coast line have been delayed. Will he tell us what he means by "in the new year"? What time scale is he talking about? Will he go for the dual-fuel trains?

Philip Hammond: The bi-mode trains are one option that we will consider. Let me explain again the reasons for the complexity and the delay. We have a preferred bidder, selected by the previous Government. That preferred bidder, Agility Trains, has come back to us with a revised proposal that is significantly more attractive than the original proposal. We have been asked by Sir Andrew Foster's review to reappraise the Agility Trains bid and to consider specific alternatives. We are carrying out that work. There are technical complexities and legal complexities, because of the procurement process. Of course, we must build a value-for-money case and compare the two options. I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement in January, and I expect it to be made early in the new year.

Steven Baker: I welcome the Government's sincere commitment to the economic renewal of the north, but what does my right hon. Friend say to people in Buckinghamshire who challenge both the route and the national interest case for high-speed rail?

Philip Hammond: I say to them that they will have an opportunity to make their case when we go to consultation on a preferred route in the new year.

Chris Bryant: Every analysis of the south Wales economy and its competitiveness shows that the single most important thing that could be done to improve the competitiveness not only of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport but all the valleys communities is the electrification of the line all the way to Swansea. Is there not therefore a strong business case, if one really believes in growth in the economy, for making sure that electrification goes ahead as soon as possible?

Philip Hammond: That is precisely what we will be looking at working with the Welsh Assembly Government to achieve-a strong business case. The hon. Gentleman might reflect on what he did in the years that he sat on the Government Front Bench when not a single metre of railway line was electrified in Wales.

Stuart Andrew: I welcome this announcement and I thank my right hon. Friend for delivering an honest assessment of what is achievable. Will he confirm that improvements to Yorkshire and trans-Pennine routes will include upgrades to carriages and increased numbers to improve the journeys of the hard-pressed commuters who have suffered badly thanks to the neglect of the Labour party?

Philip Hammond: We expect that additional carriages will be delivered to the northern and trans-Pennine franchises, but my hon. Friend will understand that these are commercial matters and that we have to enter negotiations with the franchisees as single-tender actions. We have to negotiate with them on the reimbursements they envisage for operating those additional carriages, so it is not possible to give him a precise number today because that would remove our negotiating power in the franchise discussions.

Kelvin Hopkins: Thousands of my constituents travel every day by Thameslink, as do I. The Secretary of State has disappointingly delayed this scheme by two years, euphemistically describing the delay as "reprofiling". He has specifically mentioned London Bridge, but what about Blackfriars, which he and I have visited? Will he at least confirm that the Blackfriars interchange with the Circle line will be completed on time and will not be delayed?

Philip Hammond: My understanding is that, yes, the station's new interchange with the Circle line will be completed by the end of next year and that 12-car train-running through Blackfriars will begin at that time. His constituents will see the first tangible benefits from the Thameslink project at that time.

Charles Kennedy: I welcome the encouraging implications of the Secretary of State's statement for the maintenance of through-direct links from the north of Scotland to the London metropolis, particularly for the Highland Chieftain-his Department accepted the well-backed petition of  The Inverness Courier on that. What is his prognosis for overnight services-the sleeping-car rolling stock-between the Scottish cities, plus Fort William, and London? They are long overdue and much needed.

Philip Hammond: It is for train operators to decide which specific services to offer on those routes, but the decision we take on IEP will define the type of rolling stock that is available to operate those services. I would be happy to discuss off-wire services north of Edinburgh with him if that would help.

Julie Hilling: When will electrification of the Manchester-Chorley-Preston part of the line, which runs right through my constituency, take place? It seems to be missing each time there is a statement.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady tests my geography of the north-west. If she is referring to the cord that passes from Manchester to Newton-le-Willows, rejoining the west coast main line, that will be in 2013. The rest of the electrification programme will be rolled out between 2013 and 2016.

Robert Buckland: I welcome the Secretary of State's whittling down of the options for the great western railway, but we in Swindon are waiting anxiously on the platform for a final decision on the electrification of the main line. May I urge him to make a decision that will benefit Swindon and the west country-in favour of electrification-and hold him to his promise to make a decision early in the new year?

Philip Hammond: As I have already said, that is my expectation, but, as hon. Members will understand, when complex legal, technical and commercial decisions are to be taken, we have to do the homework before we make the announcement-unlike the previous Government.

Fiona Mactaggart: I recognise that future investment plans depend on economic growth and I represent one of the most productive towns in the country on the most old-fashioned railway line-the great western main line. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and a group of companies from Slough that are anxious about the impact of other lines between Slough and Paddington, about the effect of Crossrail on the frequency of trains and about the lack of any connection from the west into Heathrow? Will he meet us to discuss his plans?

Philip Hammond: I should have thought that the hon. Lady welcomed the electrification of great western main line commuter services and the benefits that her constituency will see from Crossrail. I also have a great interest in the Airtrack project as my constituency is just south of Heathrow. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss these issues.

Mark Lancaster: One benefit of High Speed 2 will be a release of capacity on the commuter section of the west coast main line from Euston to Milton Keynes. Will the Secretary of State confirm that as a result of today's statement, rolling stock formerly used on Thameslink might be released to ease congestion on that line?

Philip Hammond: The release of rolling stock from Thameslink will provoke a cascade through the system so that Thameslink vehicles will be available for use on other lines. In some cases they will displace diesel units that will become available for use on still further lines. At the bottom of the pile, some old rolling stock is likely to be retired. By releasing large numbers of carriages into the pool we expect to change the market dynamics for leasing rolling stock, making it cheaper and therefore more affordable for the taxpayer and passenger alike.

Phil Wilson: The Secretary of State knows that if the Agility train project goes ahead it will create thousands of jobs in north-east England, including hundreds in my constituency where the trains will be built. If that does not happen and the door is slammed on north-east England-if the other option is chosen-will the contract have to go out to retender, thereby causing further delays while the tendering process takes place and delaying the intercity express programme further?

Philip Hammond: As I have said, there are complex legal and commercial issues to consider. The hon. Gentleman will understand as well as anyone the process of negotiating with Agility trains as the preferred bidder and that everything we do has to be within the constraints of the European procurement directive.

Julian Sturdy: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State's announcement. Will he outline in more detail the benefit that will come from the 650 new carriages that he has announced for 2010 to 2014 and how the investment in Network Rail will benefit the east coast main line?

Philip Hammond: Network Rail is making significant investments on the east coast main line, which explains to some extent the less than exceptional service performance on the line in the past few months as that work has been carried out. It will bring benefits in due course in terms of greater line speed and reliability. The 650 additional carriages will be distributed across the network. Some of them have already been contracted with individual franchisees and some of them will be the subject of further negotiations, which we will now commence, but there will be benefits for all parts of the country.

Ben Bradshaw: There will be bitter disappointment not just in Wales but in the south-west of England about the Secretary of State's decision to shelve the previous Labour Government's plans for the electrification of the great western line. Will he agree to publish in full the criteria that have informed his decision?

Philip Hammond: Yes. In accordance with our transparency agenda, we have made it clear-I made it clear in my previous announcement on roads-that we will in due course publish the business case analysis that informs decisions about projects that go ahead and projects that do not.

Duncan Hames: There is a pressing need for additional carriages on the Cardiff to Portsmouth line-indeed, a literally pressing need around Bristol, and on trains serving Bradford-on-Avon. Will it be need and overcrowding, or the commercial positions of franchisees, that drive the allocation of the 650 new carriages?

Philip Hammond: This is not about the commercial position of franchisees; it is about the economic benefits. We are not just looking at costs and revenue. If revenues were able to justify the costs, franchisees would be able to do the work on their own, without Government support. We are looking typically at situations where the revenue from fares does not cover the costs, but the wider economic benefits justify the investment of public money.

Clive Efford: My constituents are served by Southeastern and face the highest fare increases in the south-east network. They also suffer from pixies on the line-or rather, PIXCs: passengers in excess of capacity-at peak times, and there is a plan to deliver 12-car trains at peak times on that section of the network. Do the Government still intend to deliver those 12-car trains and relieve the congestion on the line?

Philip Hammond: That is part of the Thameslink project-12-car trains running with Southeastern-and it will go ahead.

Anne Main: I hugely welcome the proposed new fleet, but, given the delays that Bombardier caused for First Capital Connect by the late delivery of trains, what discussions will the Secretary of State have with those who are to build the trains, to ensure that they deliver the rolling stock on time?

Philip Hammond: When we contract for, or enter into arrangements to support the contracting of, rolling stock, we will look to see that there are effective penalty arrangements to make it extremely costly for anybody to fail to deliver on time what they are supposed to deliver.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Secretary of State has made it clear that he has drilled down hard on the numbers and taken an objective and exigent view of the returns that he expects from the investment. Can we expect a similar approach to HS 2? In the consultation, about which he was very open on the "Today" programme this morning, but has been less so with the House so far, will it be possible to look at alternative routes, not just geographically but in order to run HS 2 down existing lines?

Philip Hammond: I am delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman. Not many people who have addressed me on HS 2 have asked me to alter the line so that it runs through their constituency, as I think he has. I am grateful for his enthusiastic support for the project. The HS 2 consultation will include the detail of the route from London to Birmingham, the wider strategic principles of the high-speed rail network and the selected route corridors, so his constituents, his local authority, and indeed he himself, will have an opportunity to make that point.

Iain Stewart: My right hon. Friend is correct to assess carefully the different options for the intercity express programme, but when does he expect the first IEP trains to enter service?

Philip Hammond: At this point I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer; it will depend on which option is selected. Of the two remaining options, one is for a novel technology-the Agility Trains proposal for a bi-modal train, which is an innovation-and the other is for a standard high-speed electric train set with a diesel coupling at the end of the wires. Clearly the latter option could be delivered more quickly, but our decision must be based on the best long-term interests of the UK's railway.

Christopher Leslie: The Secretary of State will acknowledge that, in my constituency certainly, there will be huge disappointment that midland main line electrification did not merit even a mention in his statement. Some of my constituents could be forgiven for thinking that he has something of a grudge against the east midlands, although I am sure-and we all hope-that that is not the case. When will the decisions on control period 5 be taken, so that we might at least have the prospect of that much-needed investment?

Philip Hammond: No, I will not acknowledge that there will be huge disappointment. Only a few months ago people were telling me, and relevant publications were saying, that all this investment would have to be cancelled because of the squeeze on public spending. We should rejoice in the fact that we have managed to focus on and prioritise public capital infrastructure investment that will support economic growth in this country. I am a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not sing the praises of the decision to support and invest in the Nottingham tramway, but I will say one thing for him: I cannot blame him for the actions of the previous Government, because he was not in it.

Rob Wilson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and thank him for his personal interest in the developments at Reading station. He knows, however, that there is particular overcrowding on the route from Reading to Paddington, so will he spell out the improvements that his announcement will make to commuting from Reading to Paddington?

Philip Hammond: The decision to electrify the line as far as Didcot will mean that services to Reading are more reliable and faster. It will also enable them to be more frequent, and they will have more passenger capacity. Put together, those factors will deliver a step change in the service that my hon. Friend's constituents experience.

Clive Betts: Will the light rail improvements in Sheffield, which I think I am going to welcome, include not merely the four extra trams but the nationally significant tram-train pilot? The lack of electrification of the midland main line is a disappointment, but will the track improvements go ahead and include the extra £23 million requested, so that we can significantly reduce travel times to London, to less than two hours for the first train, and reduce times for the second train, too?

Philip Hammond: There are two separate projects in that context, at least as far as the Department is concerned: the additional vehicles for the supertram, about which we have already made an announcement; and a further proposal, for which-the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) tells me-there is a submission on my desk as we speak. I shall be happy to look at it and let the hon. Gentleman know how we can take it forward.

Robert Smith: I welcome the decision to continue running through-trains to Aberdeen and Inverness, and the fact that that uncertainty has now gone. In choosing the rolling stock that takes those journeys, will the Secretary of State ensure that we can maximise the journey improvements north of Edinburgh on the unelectrified part of the line?

Philip Hammond: Judging by the technical information that I have seen so far, I believe that both options would deliver almost exactly the same journey time, so I do not think that our choice of IEP mode will affect the journey time to Aberdeen or Inverness.

Alison McGovern: Wirral businesses have worked hard to build our local economy, and they expect me to ask questions of the Secretary of State. He says that he expects work in the north-west to begin in the next year, but given the delays that we have seen, will he return to the House to confirm absolutely that the work he has set out today will in fact go ahead?

Philip Hammond: I can save myself a trip by confirming now that work will begin next year and be completed in 2016-barring some completely unforeseen catastrophe. That is in the programme agreed with Network Rail.

Sarah Newton: I welcome today's announcement of an extra 650 carriages for rail franchises outside London, as it could really help the vital London to Penzance service and the maritime line in my constituency. What assurance can the Minister provide that he is working with First Great Western to ensure that people in Cornwall benefit from the investments announced today?

Philip Hammond: First Great Western was first off the blocks today to welcome the statement, and we will continue to work with it. We expect additional carriages for First Great Western to be contracted as part of the 650-carriage programme, and of course, when decisions are made on the IEP and on further electrification of the great western main line, the company will ultimately be a significant beneficiary.

Lilian Greenwood: The Minister knows that I am delighted with the extensions to our tram network, but unfortunately we cannot travel to London on it. Electrification of the midland main line would make it possible to reduce the travel time from Nottingham to London to an hour and a half. The Minister acknowledged that the economic case for electrification is strong-I would say "overwhelming". Can he assure me that the Government have a strategy to achieve "Nottingham in 90", pending the development of High Speed 2?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady will have noted that the last Government failed to deal with the issue of the electrification of the midland main line. I thought for a minute that I was going to get a bid for a tramway extension to London; to be honest with the hon. Lady, I prefer the option of midland main line electrification. There is a strong business case for electrifying the midland main line. The Government strongly support electrification, but we have, of course, to work within the envelope of affordability. We will be looking at projects for the next Network Rail investment control period, which begins in 2014. Midland main line electrification will have a strong case for inclusion in that programme.

Gavin Barwell: I warmly welcome the decision to proceed with the entire Thameslink programme, including the vital redevelopment of London Bridge-and the news that that will be done in a way that does not disrupt commuter services in south London. There is also the additional rolling stock for Thameslink, which should have a knock-on benefit for Southern passengers. It would be greedy to ask for more in this control period, but may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider improving the west London line in the next control period, so that south London, Gatwick, Surrey and Sussex have access to the High Speed 2 route?

Philip Hammond: I do not think I said that there would not be any disruption to commuter services during the massive reconstruction of London Bridge station; I certainly hope that I did not. I said that the reprofiling we have done will reduce the risk of serious disruption during that period. However, it will be a very major reconstruction project, and some disruption is inevitable. On west London services, of course we will examine proposals over the next couple of years as we prepare for the next Network Rail investment control period. Furthermore, the Mayor of London has an input into rail investment decisions for London commuter services.

Heidi Alexander: I would like to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). I think I heard the Secretary of State say that the additional Thameslink carriages would facilitate the lengthening of the overcrowded trains that run through our constituencies to 12 cars. Will he just confirm that?

Philip Hammond: I thought that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) was referring to Thameslink services that will run out to the south-east. If I have misunderstood that, I shall look carefully at the question that he asked, and will write to both him and the hon. Lady.

John Leech: I too welcome the news on new carriages, particularly given the broken promises of the previous Government. The Secretary of State has recognised the need for additional carriages on the Northern Rail franchise, but I remind him of the need to deliver those sooner rather than later.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the broken promises of the previous Government. He will know that they promised 182 new carriages on the Northern Rail franchise, ordered 18, and delivered none. I hope that we will be able to do better than that for him.

Virendra Sharma: I welcome the statement because I represent a constituency that needs support from the Government. I also have an interest in the matter as a former railway employee. The First Great Western railways in my constituency are generally very overcrowded. I think the Secretary of State knows the geography of the area, which is not far from his own constituency; if he does not, I will invite him to my constituency so that he can see the overcrowding. Can any extra resources be put in through First Great Western, so that there can be extra carriages to enable people to travel freely and comfortably?

Philip Hammond: I do know the geography of the hon. Gentleman's constituency; I enjoyed going there to campaign against him when he was elected at a by-election.  [Laughter.]
	The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that Crossrail will draw away some of the traffic that is using the services on which his constituents rely, and the electrification of the First Great Western main line commuter services will also provide them with additional capacity, faster services and greater reliability.

Ben Gummer: From his own experience, the Secretary of State will know that the London-Ipswich-Norwich line could qualify as a heritage line; it has hand-me-downs that are not deemed fit for the west coast main line. To be fair, I must add that that situation has obtained for 150 years. Would it be good for us to be included within the IEP, so that for once we would get new rolling stock-fresh, not second hand?

Philip Hammond: The question of brand-new rolling stock versus cascaded rolling stock depends ultimately on the business case that can be made. It is expected that some brand-new rolling stock will be deployed on the Greater Anglia franchise. I cannot tell my hon. Friend that that will necessarily be used on the London-Ipswich-Norwich line, but it is expected that there will be some new rolling stock in that franchise.

John McDonnell: I associate myself with the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). On the High Speed 2 consultation, will the Government be expressing a preference about the Heathrow link based on their acceptance of the Mawhinney report? While the Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box, will he say when the interim McNulty report will be published?

Philip Hammond: Sir Roy McNulty's interim report will be published shortly. I intend to make a statement to the House in the near future about how we intend to take that process forward, looking at the structure and affordability of the railways. I should make it perfectly clear that the consultation on HS 2 will be around a preferred route. It will be open to other parties to suggest alternative routes, but the Government will put forward one preferred route.

James Wharton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to ensuring value for money from the Government's investment in British railways. He is well aware of the importance, or potential importance, to the north-east economy of the Agility Trains bid for intercity express. Will he continue to accept representations from hon. Members from all parties who represent north-east constituencies and would like the investment to come to our region?

Philip Hammond: I shall be very happy to accept such representations. I talk regularly to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) about these things. I was in the north-east last week and met some representatives of local authorities there. However, my hon. Friend will understand that the European procurement directive imposes a framework of rules around what we can and cannot do in a procurement such as this.

Roger Williams: The Secretary of State may be interested to know that journey times between Cardiff and London Paddington actually increased during the 13 years of Labour Governments. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is working closely with the Welsh Assembly to build a business case for the electrification of the main line. Will he also meet Welsh Members of Parliament and Welsh Assembly Members so that they can help him with his homework before he comes to a conclusion about this important decision for the Welsh economy?

Philip Hammond: I shall be very happy to do so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that whichever of the two options under consideration is chosen, quite independently of the question of electrification, that will deliver a saving on the journey time to Cardiff that will get us back firmly below two hours.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. Commuters in my constituency were hit very hard by the previous Government. Fares went up by 10.3%; furthermore, RPI plus 3 for Kent was introduced in 2006, while trains to Victoria and Cannon Street were cut. May I ask for special consideration for commuters in the south-east in terms of both resources and fares?

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend knows, the Southeastern franchise fare formula was set on the basis of the need to contribute to and justify the huge investment in Javelin trains providing a super-fast service from Kent to London St Pancras. An objective analysis would say that commuters in the south-east have had a fair crack of the announcement today. Some 1,200 new railcars are to be delivered to the Thameslink service and some of the 650 additional cars to be delivered by 2014 will go to areas of south-east commuterland. There is also the commitment to proceeding with Crossrail. All those things will add massively to rail capacity into and around London.

Jane Ellison: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's statement, and the fact that stations were not overlooked. Clapham Junction in my constituency is one of the two busiest interchanges in the country. To make the railways really work, we need great modern interchanges. Although Clapham Junction never made it in any of the three previous control periods, will he join me in hoping that it will be closely considered by Network Rail for the next control period?

Philip Hammond: Network Rail is considering the section of line from Clapham Junction into Waterloo, and I will discuss its plans with it over the coming months and years. My hon. Friend might like to know that I have been told this morning that when the work at Farringdon is completed, Farringdon will overtake Clapham Junction in terms of train movements.

Gordon Birtwistle: Like many north-west MPs, I travel on the Glasgow to Euston Virgin Pendolino trains, which are heavily overcrowded during the main journey times. I understand that new rolling stock has been delivered for these trains, but Virgin Trains is not allowed to use it until the Government give it permission to do so. Will the Minister give Virgin permission to use those extra carriages, which are in stock, to alleviate the overcrowding on that line?

Philip Hammond: There seems to be a little bit of misunderstanding about this. The new Pendolino carriages have not been delivered. An acceptance test train will be delivered-in 2011, I believe-and acceptance trials will be required for certification of the additional train carriages. Virgin Trains Ltd is contracted to integrate those carriages into the Pendolino train sets, independent of what happens at the termination of the Virgin franchise on the west coast, so that work will go ahead.

Justin Tomlinson: I echo the calls to electrify the great western line fully, but I would press the Minister at least to secure the new fleet of all-electric trains with dual diesel use, to deliver much-needed faster journeys and greater capacity for my Swindon residents.

Philip Hammond: I have noted my hon. Friend's point, and will take his comments into consideration.

Matthew Offord: I welcome the statement on behalf of my constituents who use Thameslink. However, can the Minister advise me whether he will ensure that the Government's investment is not undermined by the unions? Under the previous Government, First Capital Connect staff worked to rule and Ministers refused to intervene, because many of them were dependent on RMT and other union funding.

Philip Hammond: I must say that I have been disappointed by the reaction of the unions to this morning's announcement. Far from welcoming this huge additional investment in the railway and this statement of confidence in its future, they have picked away at it much as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has done. We need to restructure the way in which franchises are let to give the train operators proper incentives to work with all their stakeholders, including the unions, to find long-term solutions to the challenges on the railway. We have to get the cost of the railway down, and make it more reliable, affordable and sustainable for fare payers and taxpayers alike in future.

Nicky Morgan: I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on announcing such a significant amount of investment despite the economic legacy left to them by the previous Government. I also welcome his clear comments about midland main line electrification; I appreciate that we shall have to wait for that. His statement did, however, mention the midland main line-a fact that seems to be lost on Opposition Members. Could he enlighten the House about the improvements that will be made to the midland main line in the current period?

Philip Hammond: In Network Rail's current control period, there is a programme of capital improvements to the midland main line that will deliver enhanced line speeds, and thus an improved service.

Marcus Jones: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and the substantial investment in our rail network, but will he explain how much smaller projects such as the important Coventry to Nuneaton rail upgrade will be assessed for future funding?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend has on a previous occasion asked me to meet him and Opposition Members representing the area. I have agreed to do so, and I look forward to having a meeting with him in due course.

Jennifer Willott: I welcome the news that travel times from London to Cardiff will be reduced by 15 minutes; as has been mentioned, that will take us back to the travel times of about 15 years ago. When making a final decision on electrification of the great western main line all the way through to south Wales, will the Secretary of State take into account the extremely strong view of businesses, politicians and commuters across south Wales that electrification is absolutely critical to the future prosperity of the region?

Philip Hammond: Of course we will take into account the views of the business community, in particular, but we will also look at the evidence. I now want to work with the Welsh Assembly Government on building that evidence.

Andrew Percy: For 13 years, Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire received the fluffy end of the lollipop when it came to transport policy. I therefore welcome the announcements on the trans-Pennine express and the east coast main line, which my two Yorkshire colleagues got to mention first. However, we also have in northern Lincolnshire some exciting open access proposals, including a line from Cleethorpes through Scunthorpe and direct to London. Will the Secretary of State work with those open access providers, and have his officials work with them, to help to bring those new services to our region?

Philip Hammond: We are always happy to see additional services being provided, but decisions on open access applications are for the rail regulator, not for the Secretary of State.

Stephen Williams: I welcome the certainty that electrification out of Paddington will continue as far as Didcot. However, does the Secretary of State agree that it is a reasonable economic assumption that a continuous project of rolling out electrification through to Swindon, Bristol Temple Meads, Bristol Parkway and through the Severn tunnel is likely to provide better value for money than a piecemeal project where engineering teams, recruitment contracts and so on have to be reassembled?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I should make it clear that we will make the decision on the total extent of electrification of the great western main line long before the physical work begins.

Martin Horwood: I welcome this statement, which is clearly overwhelmingly good news for rail customers and for the environment. However, may I also press for full electrification to Wales and the west country, and ask for the Department of Energy and Climate Change's new methodology for calculating the future cost of carbon to be fully factored into the Department's necessarily careful evaluation of the business case?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We have made a commitment to changing the formula that we use to assess transport projects to reflect the latest values of carbon.

Simon Wright: Is the Secretary of State aware of the research published by the East of England Development Agency about the £3.7 billion of potential economic benefit that greater investment in the great eastern main line would bring? Will he take that into the strongest consideration in his discussions with the franchisee?

Philip Hammond: There is not a franchisee on the east coast main line-[Hon. Members: "The great eastern!"] I am sorry, yes, the great eastern main line. Of course we will take into account all the evidence of economic benefits when we consider the future of this franchise.

Nigel Evans: Last, but certainly not least, I call John Pugh.

John Pugh: On a final jarring note, there is an impression that capital investment in rail usually means rail investment in the capital. What can the Minister do to disabuse me of my prejudice, perhaps by publishing per-region figures?

Philip Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is of course true that two huge rail projects are going ahead in the capital-Thameslink and Crossrail. The good news is that because both projects will between them deliver 1,800 new rail carriages, they will release large numbers of perfectly serviceable electric rail cars, which themselves make the case for further electrification of commuter lines in the north-west and on the great western main line. There are benefits for everybody, not merely for London and the south-east, deriving from the Crossrail and Thameslink investments.

Point of Order

David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would be so kind as to convey to Mr Speaker the very real concerns of attendants and office keepers across the estate about possible loss of jobs due to the cost reduction programme. Many of those attendants and office keepers have worked in the House for years, and some of them are approaching retirement. They are concerned that their jobs will go to the Post Office or to outside contractors-and if they go to outside contractors there will probably be no savings at all. Will you ask Mr Speaker to look benignly on these wonderful servants of the House, who have given many, many good years of their lives to the service of the House of Commons?

Nigel Evans: I am grateful for notice of that point of order. I think that everyone in the House appreciates the great work of the people of whom the hon. Gentleman is talking. He is an experienced Member and he will know that only occasionally do the services and facilities of the House give rise to real procedural points of order. As the House knows, Members are being consulted about savings in the running costs of the House. The Commission welcomes comments on individual proposals, which should be made to the Finance and Services Committee, and Members can always raise such issues directly with the head of the relevant House department. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's words will be noticed by all the relevant people.

Local Government Bill [ Lords]

Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.
	 Third Reading
	The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This is a short, two-clause Bill that reverses the proposed creation of unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter and puts to an end the uncertainty regarding reorganisation in the county of Suffolk. It was first debated and considered in some detail in the other House, then considered rigorously but briskly in this House both on Second Reading and subsequently in Committee. It reflects a coalition agreement and manifesto commitments of the two coalition parties, as well as the Government's desire, which we believe is well supported by the people in the areas concerned, to put an end to needless disruption, uncertainty and cost for local government. The issues have been well aired within their narrow compass, and I will be happy to respond to such issues as are raised in the debate.

Chris Williamson: I have some sympathy for the Minister, who is having to try to justify the Government's position on the Bill. Essentially, as he knows, he is trying to defend the indefensible. He knows that unitary councils are far more efficient than the two-tier model that he seeks to retain, and that they save money. He knows that the people in Norwich and Exeter want unitary councils. They want to have some control over their own destiny, and they do not want to be subject to the two-tier system that he seems to think is so wonderful.
	The Minister also knows that most of the councillors in Exeter and Norwich support unitary status for those great cities, and that the unitary model is a better governance model for the local authorities there.

Bob Neill: Does it follow, then, that it is the official Opposition's policy that there should be unitary authorities across the country?

Chris Williamson: The Minister knows that we support local determination, and we know from the facts surrounding Exeter and Norwich that local councillors and the local people support unitary status for those cities. It is a fact that it offers a better governance model than the two-tier system.

Simon Wright: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it took 13 years for the previous Labour Government to come to that view, by which time, with a general election so close, they knew that there was a fair chance that they would never be able to deliver on it?

Chris Williamson: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. If he looks at Labour's record of supporting local government and unitary councils around the country, he will see that we have supported unitary status where local authorities have requested it. Indeed, the previous Conservative Government created dozens and dozens of unitary authorities. I do not understand why the current Government take a different view from the Conservative Government of the 1990s.
	I would also make the point that, for local people, a unitary council is a model that is much more easily understood. Where there is a two-tier system, people are confused about which authority is responsible for which services, and in some areas there is a degree of duplication in service provision. That leads to considerable confusion, which I suspect is one reason people overwhelmingly want unitary councils in Norwich and Exeter.
	The Minister is also aware, as members of the Government parties across the piece must be, that cities are a significant engine for economic growth. Freeing up local authorities through the creation of unitary councils enables those councils to innovate much more effectively than they can under the two-tier system. I shall give a few illustrations of what I mean by that from the three cities in my own region, the east midlands.
	Let us take the example of Nottingham city council, which was made a unitary authority in the mid-1990s by the previous Conservative Administration. It has developed a wonderful tram line infrastructure in the city, which is the envy certainly of the region and probably of the country as a whole. It has certainly been an economic driver in bringing new inward investment into Nottingham.
	Similarly, Leicester is another council that was made a unitary authority in the 1990s by the previous Conservative Administration. It, too, has been extremely successful in securing inward investment, and the Queen recently opened its wonderful new Curve arts centre, a multi-million-pound project that is very well used and much admired by residents in and around the city. It is a wonderful, new, innovative arts facility not only for the people of Leicester but for people in Leicester's hinterland and county area. That is the sort of thing that can be done if an authority is given the power to innovate through unitary status.
	My own authority of Derby has also used the ability to bring inward investment into the city as a result of being a unitary council. Two or three years ago, I had the privilege of opening a wonderful new shopping centre that the council was instrumental in bringing about. That would have been considerably more difficult had it continued to be a lower-tier authority. Derby was yet another local council made a unitary authority by the previous Conservative Administration in the 1990s.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a case for unitary authorities, but does he not recognise that district councils do an equally good job in the county of Northamptonshire? The Corby district has just opened the new Cube building, a fantastic facility, and in Daventry district, which I represent, there is the iCon centre, which is a centre of excellence for construction. Surely there are points on both sides of the argument. I understand his point about self-determination, and surely that is the point of this exercise.

Chris Williamson: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, and he points to excellent examples of district authorities innovating, bringing about wonderful new facilities and generating economic activity in their areas. However, Norwich and Exeter are looking to secure freedoms that would enable them to innovate and deliver improvements such as those achieved by the district councils he mentions, but much more easily and effectively. That will be even more important in these straitened economic circumstances.
	The Minister made a very short opening speech, perhaps because he is rather embarrassed to be standing here supporting the indefensible. He knows that he has to close ranks with the Secretary of State, who in effect has hung him out to dry.
	With swingeing cuts being imposed on local councils, unitary status in Norwich and Exeter would offer some protection for front-line public services. It is an undeniable fact that it would be a far more effective and efficient use of public money to make unitary authorities responsible for all council services in their areas. That would eradicate duplication and free up funding, which could offset some of the swingeing cuts that will imposed. Over the next four years, as we know from the comprehensive spending review, there will be 28% cuts on average, although some local authorities will see even bigger cuts, and it remains to be seen how Norwich and Exeter will be affected. If we can eliminate some of the duplication in Norwich and Exeter, authorities there would have a fighting chance of at least protecting a few more front-line services, which would otherwise be put to the sword.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman outline some of the duplication in Norwich or Exeter?

Chris Williamson: It is pretty obvious, where councillors from the county authority represent Norwich and Exeter, and councillors represent the districts in Norwich and Exeter, that that in itself is a duplication. We heard the Conservatives say in the run-up to the election, and we know from their gerrymandering Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, that they want to make politics more cost-effective, but if they are genuinely serious about that, they would support the unitary status bid in Norwich and Exeter. That, then, is a duplication of the political process. There is also the duplication of the chief officers and the fact that the backroom activities of Norwich and Exeter duplicate those of Norfolk and Devon to some extent. I could go on-there is a long list of areas where there is duplication. That is surely a given.

Brandon Lewis: On the hon. Gentleman's comment about Norwich, is it not correct that, even if there was a Norwich unitary, under the previous Government's proposals there would still be a Norfolk county council, so there would be no change in the number of chief executives? The hon. Gentleman's point does not make sense.

Chris Williamson: Yes, there would still be a Norfolk county council and a Devon county council, but the fact remains that there would be far fewer councillors than there are now. There would certainly be the reduction in backroom staff in Devon and Norfolk that is necessary at the moment. That fact was recognised by previous Conservative Governments, which is why they were so keen to create so many unitary councils, which Derby, Nottingham, Leicester and many other local authorities around the country benefited from. The hon. Gentleman is on shaky ground if he is suggesting in some way that there is no duplication in the two-tier model that we have in Norwich and Exeter.

Simon Wright: What is the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the savings that would be produced by reducing the number of councillors? He said early in his speech that that was one of the main savings. I ask that particularly as the shadow boards that were set up paid considerable salaries to councillors who were already earning a council allowance.

Chris Williamson: The hon. Gentleman should not get too hung up on the issue of councillors. I explained that reducing their numbers represented not one of the main savings, but just one of the savings. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the impact assessment that was carried out at the time, he will see that it illustrated that the savings across the piece for Norwich and Exeter would be about £6.5 million per annum. That is an unanswerable fact, and I should have thought that the Government supported it.

Ben Bradshaw: Is it not absolutely astonishing that the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) is not aware of the figures in his own Government's impact assessment? They show quite clearly that there will be net savings within six years and then savings of £6.5 million every year. Those are not our figures-they are the Government's figures, but the Government have completely ignored them.

Chris Williamson: I agree with my right hon. Friend: what the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright), who represents one of the cities affected, says is astonishing. It is even more incredible given that the Liberal Democrat party in the hon. Gentleman's home city supports unitary status for the city. I do not quite understand why he has come here to justify and defend the indefensible. I know that the Liberal Democrats are on the leash of the Conservative party, but the hon. Gentleman perhaps takes things to the extreme.
	The swingeing cuts that the Government are imposing will have a devastating impact on people around the country. I appeal to Government Members to consider for a moment what that will mean not only for people who work for the authorities affected, but, most importantly, for the recipients of those authorities' services. I should have thought that Government Members would have a moral obligation to look for ways to ameliorate the full impact of the cuts to which local authorities are subject. Giving Norwich and Exeter unitary status would go a long way towards ameliorating that impact, so I call on Government Members to look into their hearts and ask themselves whether they are making the right decision. Are they simply being driven by some dogmatic imperative or are they prepared to reconsider their position? Are they-this is why hon. Members are elected to this Chamber-prepared to stand up for ordinary people and to protect their interests. By supporting the position of the Opposition and of the people and councillors of Norwich and Exeter, they would be fulfilling the role for which they were elected to this Chamber.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I promise that I will not trouble the hon. Gentleman again, but how can he stack up the comments that he made earlier about making savings in back-office functions, and therefore making people redundant, with his comments now about trying to prevent cuts in the public sector?

Chris Williamson: The fact is that there will be cuts as a result of the decisions being taken by the Government, who are in charge of funding for local councils, but the Opposition do not accept that it is necessary to make cuts on the scale that is being proposed.
	As for how I reconcile the points that I have made, I acknowledge that there will be some cuts, irrespective of whether Exeter and Norwich became unitary councils. My point, however, is that the savings that would be generated by unitary status could be used to protect front-line services. Moreover, freeing up Norwich and Exeter would give them the ability to bring in new inward investment and to innovate in a way that would create jobs in the private sector. The Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility claim that 2.5 million jobs are required in the private sector. We should support local authorities such as Norwich and Exeter in bringing in new inward investment and assisting the private sector to innovate and create the jobs that will be desperately required.
	I just wonder what happened to the brave new world of Tory localism. Hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but did the Secretary of State not say that he wanted to put
	"town halls back in charge of local affairs"?
	The Government's position on this issue calls that statement into question-it is something of a sick joke. If the Secretary of State genuinely wanted to put town halls back in charge of local affairs, he would support the democratic wishes of the elected officials in Norwich and Exeter and of the people who live in those cities. This is a bad Bill-it has all the hallmarks of a political stitch-up. It is more to do with placating Tory county backwoodsmen in Norfolk and Devon than with modern, progressive local democracy.
	The Bill is not about looking forward at all. It harks back to the disastrous period for local councils in the 1980s, when the Secretary of State was the leader of Bradford council. If passed, the Bill will represent a sad day for the people of Norwich and Exeter, and a sad day for local democracy. For all the Secretary of State's blustering hyperbole, it seems that he has already written the obituary for democratic localism even before the ink has dried on his much-vaunted localism Bill.

Brandon Lewis: I do not wish to detain the House for long on Third Reading, because much was said on Second Reading and in Committee and we have covered the issues. However, I wanted to update the House on the Norwich and Norfolk situation.
	The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) referred to the potential savings, which in Norwich were just under £2 million. That sounds good, but there is an up-front cost of £20 million, and most savings would be made only after five or six years. In most organisations, such potential savings are never delivered after that amount of time because things change.

Chris Williamson: I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the impact assessment. He is right that the cost of implementing unitary status in Norwich and Exeter is around £40 million, but the savings over that same period work out at £39.4 million, so the net cost of implementation is only £600,000, and there is an additional, ongoing saving of £6.5 million per annum.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman helps me to make my point: just think how much we could save if we did not have the up-front costs of a top-down, forced unitary authority. In Norfolk, local authorities and the county council are working together to find ways of sharing services and to make the savings of £6 million a year-or potentially more-across Norfolk without going to the trouble and cost of creating a unitary authority that is forced on them from the top down.
	We must remember there was no screaming desire on the part of people in Norfolk or indeed Norwich for that change, and no opinion poll showed that they wanted it. The only review-published by the previous Government-showed an overwhelming desire for the status quo across Norfolk and that if there was a preference for unitary, it was for a Norfolk unitary rather than Norwich unitary, which could have meant an awful lot of savings. Changing Norwich city council, which has not had a great track record recently, into a unitary would not save anything in officers or councillors. The real benefit to Norfolk will come from local authorities working together and sharing services. Those discussions are ongoing, and I hope that savings can be made much earlier than they would have been made under a unitary authority. That might even happen before Christmas.

Ben Bradshaw: As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said, this is a sad day for two of our great, historic English cities. I was brought up in one of them-Norwich-and I have represented the other in the House since 1997. The Government's measures will not be lost on the voters of either city. Indeed, in local government elections in September-they were forced on us by the Bill-the Conservatives did very badly, the Liberal Democrat vote completely collapsed, and Labour retook control of the council. I predict a similar bloodbath for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Norwich when voters there have the opportunity to use their democratic right.
	The quisling stance of the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) will not be missed by the voters of Norwich. As a candidate, he advocated Norwich's unitary status; since then, he has voted with the coalition Government in favour of the Bill and against our amendments that would have kept the ambitions of Norwich and Exeter alive.
	There is a long history to the Bill. For hundreds of years before 1974, Norwich and Exeter enjoyed self-government. Long before county councils were even thought of, let alone invented, Norwich and Exeter had their own unitary local government that made decisions on behalf of their citizens. In 1974, the then Conservative Government robbed those two great, historic cities of their right to self-determination in their reorganisation. They handed most of the services, including the most important ones-education and social services-to the county councils.
	We have heard a lot in debates on the Bill about dealing with the problems of two-tier local authorities. That principle used to be held by all parties in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North reminded us, the previous Conservative Government were very permissive in granting unitary status, including to the two other main urban areas in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay. It is funny that they were happy to grant Conservative Plymouth and Conservative Torbay unitary status but not Exeter, which is of even greater economic importance and value to the wider sub-region. The Conservatives have completely changed their position, and it is not really very clear what the Liberal Democrats position is.
	There are many reasons to advocate unitary government, and they have been taken up by all parties. My hon. Friend spoke of the economies involved, but almost as important to my constituents is the feeling that they have some democratic control, and that councillors have some democratic accountability. They do not currently have that. Countless decisions that affect Exeter and Norwich are made by county councillors who are not from those cities and who do not have their interests at heart. That is one reason why all parties in the House have supported unitary government in the past. It is more efficient and cheaper, and there is a direct line of democratic accountability, which voters prefer and value.
	In the course of debates on the Bill, the Government have been absolutely unable to produce evidence for it. Their own impact assessment made it quite clear that unitary status would mean significant savings to the taxpayer in the medium and long terms. They have been unable to challenge the fact that unitary status in Exeter and Norwich enjoyed widespread support. In my own city of Exeter, every single party on the local council, including the Conservative party, the Liberals, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, supported Exeter's unitary ambitions, as did our university and business community. In Norwich, support was almost but not quite as unanimous-the Conservatives were the only party on that local authority to oppose Norwich's bid.
	The Government have produced absolutely no evidence for what they are doing today. My hon. Friend was quite right, therefore, to imply that the only possible reason for the Bill is political spite. There is no other reason for it at all. The voters will long remember and not forgive that, but all is not lost. I was pleased that in an earlier debate on the Bill, Labour Front Benchers gave a very clear commitment that under a future Labour Government, the just and rightful aspirations of the people of Exeter and Norwich will be honoured.

Bob Neill: With the leave of the House, I briefly reply to the debate.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on a remarkable display of political chutzpah. I kept my opening speech brief not because I am embarrassed by the Bill-I am not remotely embarrassed by it-but because when I was a young barrister, those who taught me often said, "The stronger the case, the shorter the argument should be." As briefly as possible, I shall briskly rebut some of the points that were made in the debate.
	First, the Bill is not about the merits or otherwise of unitary authorities per se, but about the specific proposals for Norfolk and Norwich and Devon and Exeter, and the hangover arrangements relating to the county of Suffolk-no more than that. That came about, I observe, because the former Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), attempted to rush through these unitary proposals, against the advice of his Department's accounting officer and his own party predecessors, in the dying days of the last Parliament. That was struck down as unlawful by the High Court, however, so the matter remains outstanding and has to be brought to a close.

Chris Williamson: If this is not an argument against the merits or demerits of unitary councils, it would seem that the Minister has inadvertently conceded that this is an act of political spite.

Bob Neill: On the contrary, it is clearing up an act of partisan manoeuvring by the previous Government, who abandoned their own criteria. It is worth remembering that a previous Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), concluded that neither the Exeter bid nor the Norwich bid met the value-for-money test that she had set herself. Was she acting out of political spite? I rather doubt it. It was also concluded that the Norwich bid was questionable on the affordability test. So the Labour party set out certain criteria, but these proposals did not meet them, and it then completely changed its tune. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, therefore, for Labour Members to accuse the Government of having changed their stance; it is they who have been so inconsistent that the High Court overturned their attempted gerrymandering.

Chris Williamson: How does the Minister respond to the point that the impact assessment concluded that there would be ongoing savings of £6.5 million per year? Surely that is an example of good value for money, and it would be brought about by creating unitary councils in Norwich and Exeter.

Bob Neill: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the impact assessment, which I was going to come to, because throughout this debate Labour Members have singularly failed to understand how the impact assessment operated. First, it set out and commented on the costs and savings by reference to the previous Government's assessments. If they think there is a problem with the previous assessments, it is not our difficulty-we did not create them. It was the previous Labour Government who judged that these proposals did not meet the financial criteria and, in the case of Norwich, the value-for-money criteria as well. They cannot have it both ways; their impact assessments were used by their own Ministers to condemn proposals that they later chose to bring forward-so I will not hear any arguments on the impact assessment.
	Secondly, it is quite clear-there is ample evidence from across the country, from joint working by local authorities, including those in Devon, Suffolk and Norfolk-that considerable savings can be made through collaborative working without the on-costs and up-front costs of reorganisation. So we can have the benefits without the costs.
	At the end of the day, this was a political act by the Labour Government, who, finding it inconvenient to stick with the decisions of their own Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, decided to wriggle out of it by inventing a reason that had never existed before for departing from their own criteria. That was struck down by the High Court. We have concluded that enough is enough, and that this would not serve the good interests of the governance of the counties of Devon and Norfolk, of which the cities concerned are an integral part. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed  to .
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft National Assembly for Wales Referendum (Assembly Act Provisions) (Limit on Referendum Expenses Etc.) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 21 October, be approved. -(Mr Goodwill.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft National Assembly for Wales Referendum (Assembly Act Provisions) (Referendum Question, Date of Referendum Etc.) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 21 October, be approved. -(Mr Goodwill.)
	 Question agreed to.

business of the House

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 2 December, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Kevin Barron relating to Publication of Information about Complaints against Members, Power of the Parliamentary Commission for Standards to Initiate Investigations and Lay Membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.- (Sir George Young.)

welsh grand committee

Ordered,
	That-
	(1) the matter of the implications for Wales of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration; and
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 1 December at 9.30 am and between 2.30 pm and 4.30 pm to consider-
	(a) a statement by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury; and
	(b) the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above.- (Sir George Young.)

UK VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr Goodwill.)

Louise Bagshawe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for offering me the opportunity to debate a matter that I know will be of particular concern not only to Members of the House, but to the entire country.
	The ceremonies of Remembrance Sunday are fresh in our minds. I know that most hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon will have had the honour of recently laying a wreath in their own constituencies-in my case, under the auspices of our amazing branch of the Royal British Legion in Corby and east Northamptonshire. It is perhaps appropriate that time has been made to debate how our country treats its veterans, and whether we have the prospect of a better model in front of us, in this month of November. It is my contention that the UK needs a fully fledged veterans administration.
	A great opportunity lies before the Government, and I am full of hope because both in the manner of their conception, and the way they have governed since, the coalition Government have eschewed the piecemeal. Things are not being done by halves. They are a Government of big ideas, sweeping reforms and profound change. From the universal credit to free schools, from the spending review to the alternative vote referendum, the Government, like the infant Hercules strangling the serpents, have not failed to grasp nettles and do things differently, even in their earliest days.
	Our veterans need things to be done differently. I am sure that all Members support the amazing work of the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, whose wrist band I am wearing today, ABF The Soldiers' Charity and the plethora of other worthy military charities operating in our country. However, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister will be aware, there is a great feeling out there among the public that it is shameful that our veterans rely so greatly on voluntary bodies and charitable giving.
	As a candidate, I was heartened to see my party campaign on restoring the military covenant, and now, as a coalition Back-Bench Member, I welcome all the various steps the Government have taken for our troops-for example, the doubling of the operational allowance and the military covenant being sealed in statute. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as almost one of his first acts in office, announced a welcome review by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) into mental health care for veterans. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Education has announced that the pupil premium will apply to the children of military families, and to great acclaim has recently announced a troops to teachers programme, bringing ex-servicemen's expertise and valour into the classroom, so that they can benefit the nation's children.
	All of that, taken as a package, is extremely heartening. However, I urge the Minister to consider whether the Government's efforts on behalf of troops and veterans do not point the way to a more comprehensive and unitary approach and a single co-ordinating veterans administration taking care of everything, rather than to the provision of piecemeal help from individual Departments.
	I shall return to the theme that I took up in my maiden speech, because the matter is so important to me. The UK is the only country in the English-speaking world not to have a veterans administration, veterans department or something similar, and that is a rebuke to this House. New Zealand has Veterans' Affairs New Zealand, with its own dedicated Minister; Australia and Canada both have Departments of Veterans' Affairs; and of course the United States has the gold standard in the Veterans' Administration.
	In an article written for the website Conservative Home about his review of mental health care on behalf of the Government, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire said:
	"Throughout my review I have been struck by the almost grudging beneficence of past British governments towards uniformed men and women in stark contrast with that of other nations, particularly our Anglophone partners. I doubt our warriors will ever enjoy the hero worship that Uncle Sam lavishes on America's finest".
	But why should that be? Since they are every bit as heroic-many of us would say more so-why should they not enjoy it? I urge the Government to go further than their already welcome efforts have. It is not simply a matter of cost. It is true that the budget for the US Veterans' Administration is a monstrous $87 billion-and because a good politician is a pragmatic politician, I am not asking the Government to go in that direction-but the budget for the Canadian Department of Veterans' Affairs is only 3.4 billion Canadian dollars. In this country, however, what is first required is not excessive extra cost, but merely co-ordination. The original United States Veterans' Administration was founded in 1930 with a mission to
	"consolidate and co-ordinate Government activities affecting war veterans".
	And we need nothing more in this country.
	Today, we have the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, but I regret to say that it is nothing like enough. The SPVA was created in 2007. In its own words, there are
	"many organisations...from Government and the voluntary sector"
	that provide help to veterans. Describing that scattergun approach, the SPVA says:
	"This can at times be confusing for those seeking help as they are unsure about which organisations provide what services."
	I regret that that quotation is verbatim. The SPVA website, Veterans-UK, is supposedly the first portal through which our veterans are meant to access its services. It is an embarrassment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is that really the best that we can do for our veterans, our serving troops and their dependants? If, as a soldier, you want to go online and find out why you are not entitled to priority in local housing-unless you are Welsh-this website is for you; and should you wish to be directed to a number of charities, which may or may not be able to help, this is for you. Anyone wishing to look up the Government's apparent "review of veterans policy", which the site is linked to, will be directed to the Minster for Veterans-no, not my hon. and gallant Friend on the Front Bench this afternoon, but a smiling photograph of my colleague on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who has not been the Minister for more than four years. That is the level of service that this country currently offers.
	Written answers to questions from Members from all parties, in all parts of the House, including the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who had such a long-standing interest in veterans' affairs, have revealed, for example, a lack of data kept on the number of ex-servicemen in prison. Another answer showed that no estimate of the cost of family breakdown arising from veterans' mental health problems has been made. Far too many written answers from the Ministry of Defence concentrate on charities. The world is starting to notice. Sergeant Neil Duffy recently returned his medals to the Prime Minister in a protest over benefits cuts that had left him suicidal. That was apparently down to a Department for Work and Pensions error, but a co-ordinating veterans administration would have avoided any confusion between military benefits and civilian entitlements.
	On 4 November,  The Economist ran an article condemning our country's veterans provision, writing that
	"a lavish American-style GI Bill of Rights is unlikely"-
	and nor, I should emphasise, am I asking for one this afternoon-and quoting the director general of the British Legion as saying that he plans for
	"a bow-wave of demand for our welfare support".
	 The Economist, I hope like the House, concludes that, in honouring our war dead, we
	"ought perhaps to think also of a future that, for some servicemen, is likely to be bleak"
	There are many things that a veterans agency could do that would cost the Government absolutely nothing at all. Had I won the ballot on private Members' Bills, I would have introduced a Bill making it illegal to discriminate against a member of Her Majesty's forces on the grounds that he or she is wearing the Queen's uniform. I would like to see a drive, led by the Government, on cultural change, perhaps through education programmes in schools and public information programmes, to develop practices such as those that I witnessed when living in the United States with my ex-husband for several years, where military personnel are regularly thanked for their service. When I have taken the opportunity, as a Member of this House, to thank troops whom I have come across for their service, I am often told that nobody has ever thanked them before. Surely that is a crying shame.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire will, in the end, be surprised, because our troops deserve all the honour-all the hero-worship-that the Americans render to theirs. I hope that the Minister this afternoon will consider creating a fully fledged, co-ordinating veterans administration or department, bringing the UK into line with the rest of the English-speaking world. He is not only a Minister, but a distinguished former soldier. May I therefore take this opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his service, and to commend this project to him, as the final seal on restoring the military covenant, to which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are so committed?

Oliver Colvile: May I begin by thanking you for allowing me to speak in this Adjournment debate about veterans, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) on securing it in the first place? Needless to say, representing Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk on behalf of one of the finest strategic naval bases-indeed, one of the finest naval bases as a whole-and one of the most historic naval ports and cities that our country has.
	There are two things that I would like to speak about in the next few moments. I will try to ensure that I do not take up too much time, but, first, if my hon. Friend the Minister and the Ministry of Defence are going to make a decision about the location of the national veterans weekend in 2012, I would like to ensure that Plymouth is up there in their considerations, as it most certainly should be. There is a genuine feeling that Plymouth was rather let down under the previous Administration and that Chatham pipped it at the post, but Plymouth has a good story to tell. Indeed, it is interesting to note that as we debate an incredibly important issue for my constituency, and for other Army, naval and Royal Marine bases, no members of the Labour party are here to participate.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is an Adjournment debate that was secured by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe). She has given him permission to participate, but normally the convention is that only she speaks.

Oliver Colvile: Thank you for reminding me of that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The second issue that I should like to raise is the whole business of combat stress and the mental health issues that go with it. I have been hearing some sad and depressing stories about how it can take 14 years for some veterans to come forward with combat stress. I have also heard stories of serving personnel who experience very big problems in their homes, because they have been overcome by their mental health issues. Unless we take action on that, we will face a whole series of related issues, including more drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and all those other mental health issues.
	I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has produced his report, which I understand has gone to the Prime Minister and which, according to the Secretary of State, will be fully implemented. That is very good news. The report makes the point that we should incorporate a
	"structured mental health systems enquiry into existing medical examinations performed"
	while servicemen and women are still serving, which is very important indeed. The report talks about uplifting
	"the number of mental health professionals conducting veterans outreach work from Mental Health Trusts in partnership with a leading mental health charity,"
	which is absolutely vital. The report refers to:
	"A Veterans Information Service...to be deployed 12 months after a person leaves the Armed Forces,"
	which is vital, as is the
	"Trial of an online early intervention service for serving personnel and veterans."
	All that is absolutely vital, because if we do not do something about these issues, we will see more people admitted to our mental health units, increasing numbers of people going to prison-and mental health issues in prison are a very big worry indeed-and an enormous amount more homelessness on our streets.
	When I was first selected to be the candidate in Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I was struck by the story of a man whom I met at Bretonside bus station who was living on the streets. He told me about how his relationship had broken down once he had left his regiment in the Army-the whole thing had gone very wrong for him-described the problems that he then encountered and explained how difficult he was finding it to get back into work. The whole issue of combat stress is vital, but caring for our veterans after they have served so gallantly on behalf of our country is vital too.
	Combat Stress, the well-regarded national charity, told me earlier today that it has seen a vast increase in the number of people suffering from mental health issues since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the more help we can give our veterans and the better we can take care of them, the better. That is what we should be about.

Andrew Robathan: Let me start, as is traditional, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) on securing this debate to discuss the important topic of how we look after former members of our armed forces. I am glad to hear that I, too, am expected to grasp nettles like the infant Hercules; I am not sure whether there is a mixed metaphor somewhere in there, but there probably is, although that is my fault, because I am not such an illustrious author. By the way, I am not a very distinguished soldier either-although it was very sweet of my hon. Friend to say that I was. Never mind, I take all flattery when it is given.
	I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) here today, and I have heard his submission for Armed Forces day 2012. I am sure that he will make it again, but I will note it and take it into account when decisions are made.
	I confess that I was rather sorry to hear that the title of the debate had changed from "Care for UK Ex-Servicemen" to "UK Veterans Administration". Although I am officially the Minister for veterans, I cannot help feeling that many of those who have served are more comfortable with a term that highlights exactly what they have done-that they have served their country in a way that is unique. My only qualification would be to add that today more and more ex-servicewomen swell the ranks.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Corby raised several important points, and I shall respond at length on one or two. I do not want to take up too much time, and I may not have all the information to hand, but we will enter into correspondence about the issues. I do not agree with everything she said, as I shall explain, but what has come across clearly is that she and I, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, share two fundamental principles. The first is that the nation and the Government have a moral obligation to care for those who have made a commitment by joining the armed forces, and taking on the duties and sometimes the sacrifices that service requires. I will return to the question of the armed forces covenant later.
	The second principle is that when we provide support, we must place the ex-serviceman or woman at the heart of what we do. Organisations and structures are only the means to an end, and what matters is how we can best help each individual, such as the person whom my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport met in a bus shelter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Corby highlighted the range of services that former service personnel may need to call on during their lives, and the variety of agencies that provide them. She argues that it would be more cost-effective to provide those services if they were brought together in a single administration. I do not agree, because when a service is already provided by one Department for the majority of the population, there needs to be a very strong case to set up a separate organisation to do the same thing for the remainder. Ex-service personnel live among us; they are not separate from the community that they have worked to protect. There are three ex-regular army officers in the Chamber and one former Territorial officer. We are here; we are not separate from the rest.
	For the most part, veterans' needs are the same as those of their fellow citizens, whether they involve health care, housing or benefits. Most of our ex-service personnel do not want that period in their lives, which may be quite brief, to be the dominant factor in deciding how they access services for the rest of their lives. A great friend of mine, General Sir Robert Fry, recently said that some of the reaction to the armed forces at the moment is somewhat mawkish, and that is true up to a point. I do not mean that the armed forces, the House or I myself do not relish the fact that people are now giving due respect where it is deserved-but we must be careful that we do not adopt a mawkish attitude to people who are just getting on with their lives in the service of this country.

Bob Stewart: Some people might not consider that to be mawkish. From my time in Northern Ireland, I know some soldiers who would benefit greatly from better veterans' services. Our problem with mental casualties will increase hugely. On average, one person is killed for eight wounded, but in the Minister's and my time that was one to three. The problem will get worse, and we must ensure that our services for those veterans are as good as possible.

Andrew Robathan: My hon. and gallant Friend not only spent a longer time in the armed forces than the rest of us in the Chamber today, but came away much more covered in glory and honour than anyone else. I assure him that I and the Government appreciate, as did the previous Administration, the long-term problems that may arise from many of the casualties in Afghanistan. I will return to mental health shortly, because I want to raise several issues.
	The US model is often held up for comparison, but the great difference between ourselves and our American friends is, of course, that in this country we have a national health service within a welfare state. It has the vocation to provide the very best care for everyone. Since 1948 the NHS has given excellent service day in, day out to millions of ex-servicemen and women and their families.
	Ex-service personnel are entitled to priority in NHS treatment for conditions resulting from service. The main problem has been lack of awareness of that entitlement among ex-servicemen and women, and especially among practitioners, which is why we have supported recent steps to publicise it more effectively. At the new Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, we see evidence every day of the superb level of care that the NHS provides to our people who are injured in Afghanistan. They are still serving, of course, but that shows the first-class co-operation that can and does exist between different parts of Government. We must ensure that that is everyone's experience.
	We must also recognise that part of the support for ex-service personnel comes not from the Government but from the voluntary and community sector; my hon. Friend the Member for Corby mentioned that. Sometimes the service charities are described as substituting for what the Government should be doing. I believe that that does them a great disservice. I say philosophically that Government bureaucracy is not necessarily the best way to deliver some of the extra services and care that service charities deliver. The help that charitable and voluntary organisations and-dare I say it?-the big society have given to people returning from warfare goes back a long way. It is not for the state to do everything, and the state is not necessarily best placed to do that. We all have social responsibilities, and service charities are an excellent example of the big society in action. I pay tribute to their vital and irreplaceable role in our national life.
	This week-it seems to have been quite a long week-I had an opportunity to visit the Royal British Legion on the south bank, and Combat Stress, two organisations that work as active and independent charities, but collaborate closely with the Government in the interests of ex-servicemen. Several formulae have been suggested over the years to strengthen the focus on ex-service issues in the UK. They range from the full-blown US-style Veterans Administration to more modest changes to Government machinery. Some give a greater role to the Ministry of Defence; others look to central Government to take on the responsibility. The creation of a Minister for veterans can be seen against that background, but my role, quite properly, has its limits. I can act as an advocate or as an interlocutor for ex-service personnel, but I do not want to tell the Department of Health and its devolved equivalents how best to deliver health care. Rather, I want to see ex-servicemen and women treated correctly across government, and not pigeonholed.
	If we are to rely on our current range of providers to support former members of the armed forces, that will impose two requirements on us. The first is that the services that the nation provides should be attuned to the particular needs of veterans, where that is appropriate. Mental health has been mentioned, and it is an excellent example. It is generally acknowledged that ex-service personnel who are suffering problems as a direct result of their service-for example, those with post traumatic stress disorder- might respond better to an environment in which their particular experience is recognised and understood. I have heard this referred to as "cultural sensitivity". Hence the importance of the six mental health pilots, designed to trial best practice in this area, which are going on now.
	Getting our mental health services right, and tailoring them to the needs of the ex-service personnel who need them, is a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has considered fully in his recent report. We are now taking forward his recommendations. To illustrate the priority that we attach to this, when I visited Combat Stress headquarters earlier in the week and had a chance to learn more about its activities, I was joined not only by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire but by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). I hope that represents a true example of joined-up government. I heard exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said on these matters, but rather than going into them in great depth now, I want to discuss one or two of the issues with him later. Perhaps he could buy me a cup of tea.

Oliver Colvile: indicated assent.

Andrew Robathan: Ah, good.  [ Interruption. ] He is quite well off, I think.
	That joint approach brings me to the second requirement, which is co-ordination between providers. I think that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who used to do my job, will agree that the co-ordination between providers has not always been good. Ex-service personnel want services that meet their needs efficiently and effectively. They do not want to be shunted about, or to fall down the cracks. That has happened in the past, and it is still happening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Corby has referred to the efforts that the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency makes to co-ordinate the different services that ex-service personnel can call upon. Its helplines are very successful, for example, handling 150,000 to 200,000 calls each year. When I visited Norcross earlier this year, I listened to some of those calls, and heard good practical advice being given in a clear and sensitive way. I would like to put on record today my appreciation for what the SPVA staff do to assist ex-servicemen and women. Whether it involves managing pensions and compensation, staffing the helplines, delivering the veterans welfare service or issuing veterans badges-which are very popular-they make a real difference.
	We must ensure that Government Departments work together as a matter of course. They need to take into account the needs and concerns of former service personnel at all stages of their work, from developing policy to delivering services on the ground.

Kevan Jones: I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman's point about co-ordination at local level. We piloted the welfare pathway-I understand that he does not like that name-and I wonder whether he is going to roll it out further. It was all about getting people at local level talking to each other.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman knows that I recognise and pay tribute to the work that the last Administration did. If we look back 10 years, or even five, the situation was not what it is now-let us not blame whoever was in government 10 years ago-and I pay tribute to what they did. Now, the situation is very different from what it was even three years ago. He is quite right to say that I do not like the term "pathway"; it sounds a bit like new Labour-speak to me. However, in answer to his question, we are making no commitments at the moment, but we are certainly looking towards this way, because if it works, it will be the best way forward.
	As I was saying, Government Departments need to work together as a matter of course, and to take into account the needs and concerns of veterans at all stages of their work, from developing policy to delivering services on the ground. I have even put into my speech here that I believe that the previous Government were right to emphasise that principle, when they published the command paper "The Nation's Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans". To ensure that that happens, the Cabinet Office chairs a Committee at senior level to bring Departments together.
	What we have been discussing is at the heart of the military covenant. Our own commitment to rebuilding the covenant featured prominently in the coalition programme for government. That programme includes a range of proposals to benefit ex-service personnel, from mental health to Troops for Teachers, which was mentioned only yesterday and, I noticed, was the subject of a headline in the  Evening Standard. I am not sure that I quite understood the newspaper's interpretation of the proposal, but there we go. On Troops for Teachers, I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education yesterday confirming our commitment to a scheme that will help both ex-service personnel and our schools.
	I suggest to the House that the key to making things work better for ex-service personnel is that kind of holistic, co-ordinated approach, working together to a common end, rather than an organisational upheaval. Our intention is that the new tri-service armed forces covenant will set the tone of what we do across Government.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues today. I will take up many of the points that she has raised and discuss them with her further. Her interventions remind us that one of the yardsticks by which a Government are judged is how well they treat their ex-servicemen and women. We are determined to treat them with dignity and respect and to reflect the huge debt, which my hon. Friend spoke about, that we all owe to all of them. It is our moral duty to do so.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.